The Church and Tolstoy: a history of relations. Spiritual problems of A. K. Tolstoy's creativity Alexey Tolstoy religious creativity

Here is a famous fragment from the memoirs of Alexei Konstantinovich’s cousin:

“- Alyosha, do you believe in God?

He wanted, as usual, to answer with a joke, but, probably noticing the serious expression on my face, he changed his mind and answered somewhat embarrassedly:

- Weak, Louise!

I couldn't stand it.

- How? Don't you believe? – I exclaimed.

“I know that God exists,” he said, “I think that I have no doubt about it, but...”.

This point is often used to prove that Alexey Konstantinovich was not an Orthodox believer and was indifferent to religious issues, and this opinion is supported by indications of his passion for spiritualism, which is not approved by the church. In Tolstoy’s dialogue with his cousin one can also hear a bad evasiveness, as in Faust’s conversation with his trusting but demanding lover:

Margarita

<…>
Do you believe in God?

Faust

Oh honey, don't touch
Such questions. Which of us will dare
Answer without embarrassment: “I believe in God”?
And the rebuke of the scholastic and the priest
So sincerely stupid on this score,
Which seems like a wretched mockery.

Margarita

So you don't believe it, then?

Faust

Don't distort it
My speeches, O light of my eyes!
Who can trust
Whose mind
Dare to say: “I believe”?
Whose being
Will he arrogantly say, “I don’t believe it”?
into it,
Creator of everything.
Supports
Total: me, you, space
And yourself? (I.V. Goethe. Faust. Part 1. Chapter 16)

But if you seriously listen to what Alexey Konstantinovich says and how, you can feel modesty true Christian who does not want to fall into the sin of pride. Who will dare to declare the strength and depth of their religiosity if the “mustard seed” of faith should move mountains, if even the Apostle Peter is called in the Gospel of little faith (cf. Matt. 14:31)?

In one of the letters to S.A. Tolstoy (from 05/11/1873), the writer directly speaks about his faith, as usual, in personal communication with loved ones, intertwining a serious topic and a humorous intonation: “By seven o’clock in the morning, asthma began to pass, and I began to dance around the room with happiness, and I It occurred to me that the Lord God must feel pleasure in ridding me of asthma, since I thank Him so picturesquely. In fact, I am sure that He would never have sent her if it had depended on Him; but this must be a consequence of the necessary order of things, in which the first “Urheber” is myself, and perhaps, in order to save me from asthma, it would be necessary to make people less sinful than me suffer. So, since a thing exists, it must exist, And nothing will ever make me grumble against God, in whom I believe completely and endlessly» .

The religious orientation of A.K.’s creativity Tolstoy was most “purely” manifested in two poems that occupy a special place in Russian literature of the 19th century and constitute a kind of “natural cycle”: “The Sinner” (1857) and “John of Damascus” (1858).

"Sinner"

The poem “The Sinner,” published in the magazine “Russian Conversation,” gained enormous popularity among contemporary readers, was distributed, including in lists, and was recited in literary evenings(this fact received ironic coverage in A.P. Chekhov’s comedy “The Cherry Orchard”). At first glance, the very appeal to the Gospel history seems uncharacteristic of Tolstoy’s contemporary Russian literature and can be interpreted as a conscious departure from the “spite of the day” into the realm not so much of the past as of the Eternal. This is how this work was generally accepted by most critics. However, it is curious that in the middle of the 19th century, Russian poets repeatedly used this very plot: the meeting of Christ with a sinner.

Here is the text of the original source - the Gospel of John:

...in the morning he came to the temple again, and all the people came to Him. He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman taken in adultery, and, placing her in the middle, they said to Him: Teacher! this woman was taken in adultery; and Moses commanded us in the law to stone such people: What do you say? They said this, tempting Him, in order to find something to accuse Him of. But Jesus, bending low, wrote with his finger on the ground, not paying attention to them. When they continued to ask Him, He bowed down and said to them: He who is without sin among you, be the first to throw a stone at her. And again, bending low, he wrote on the ground. They, having heard [that] and being convicted by their conscience, began to leave one by one, starting from the eldest to the last; and only Jesus remained and the woman standing in the middle. Jesus, standing up and not seeing anyone but the woman, said to her: woman! where are your accusers? no one judged you? She answered: no one, Lord. Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more(John 8:2–11).

The most popular “reading” of this episode in the mid-19th century was associated with social issues: Christ’s famous phrase about the stone was interpreted as an exposure of Pharisaic hypocrisy. This “external” aspect of the gospel history turned out to be very popular, since it seemed to provide a justification for the theory of the “environment” (“the environment is stuck”), which became widespread in the radical democratic press from the late 1850s. According to this theory, there are no criminals, there are unfortunate victims of a dysfunctional life, an unjust social order that needs to be changed. It turned out that a hypocritical society that condemns (and punishes) an outright sinner is itself much more sinful than him and therefore has no right to judge. Here the words “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” turned out to be no less convenient, understood too straightforwardly. That is, Christ, in this interpretation, turned out to be one of the first socialists, a kind of “forerunner” of the radicals of the 19th century. See an episode from Dostoevsky’s memoirs about Belinsky in the “Diary of a Writer” for 1873:

“Belinsky said:

“Believe me, if your Christ had been born in our time, he would have been the most inconspicuous and ordinary person; It would be obscured by current science and the current drive of humanity.

- Well, nooo! – Belinsky’s friend picked up. (I remember we were sitting and he was pacing back and forth across the room). - Well, no: if Christ appeared now, he would join the movement and become its head...

“Well, yes, well,” Belinsky suddenly agreed with surprising haste, “he would have joined the socialists and followed them.” This episode, apparently, formed the basis of the famous conversation between Kolya Krasotkin and Alyosha Karamazov in last novel writer: “And, if you like, I’m not against Christ. He was a completely humane person, and if he had lived in our time, he would have directly joined the revolutionaries and, perhaps, would have played a prominent role... This is even certain.”

A similar view of Christ was reflected in the poetry of A.K.’s contemporaries. Tolstoy – D.D. Minaeva and V.P. Burenin, who (the first in 1864, the second in 1868) translated Alfred de Vigny’s poem “The Harlot” (“The Sinner”) into Russian.

Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, offering his artistic interpretation of the Gospel episode in the poem “The Sinner,” radically excludes social aspect: His Christ does not speak famous words about the stone and does not denounce hypocritical judges. O. Miller drew attention to this feature as a fundamental one in his extensive article “Count A.K. Tolstoy as a lyrical poet": "... our poet was completely imbued with a purely religious idea in it [the poem] personal appeal to God of a living soul. He did not touch upon the social side of the issue at all, but it would not be difficult to touch upon it if he directly adhered to the beautiful Gospel story with the meaningful words of the Savior: “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Already on the basis of these words, which our poet did not use at all, it would be possible to expose the sin of this woman as the sin of the whole society, a natural consequence of the established order in it - and such a statement of the matter would give the story of distant antiquity a lively interest to the present, would directly connect it with the “spite of the day”.

Tolstoy did not take advantage of the opportunity to give the Gospel story “a lively contemporary interest”

This reproach also contains a possible explanation - why Tolstoy did not take advantage of the opportunity to give the Gospel story “a lively contemporary interest.” That is precisely why I didn’t use it: I didn’t want the eternal plot to be read “on the topic of the day” and thereby lose its spiritual “dimension”. Christ’s words about the stone can be used for purposes far from Christianity: outwardly intersecting with Tolstoy’s contemporary social theories about the “environment”, about crime as a “protest”, these words, of course, are about something else - about the need to look into one’s own soul before judge other people's sins. About the need to see the beam in your own eye before pointing out the mote in someone else's. And the “spite of the day” turns this eternal truth into a “party” truth: lawyers do not have the right to judge a criminal, because they themselves are worse than him, because society is structured so unfairly that it is not the one who is more sinful who is to blame, but the one who is weaker, who stands lower in the social hierarchy. And this injustice needs to be corrected.

It is likely that Tolstoy felt the danger of profanation, a pragmatic interpretation of Christ’s phrase, and therefore considered it necessary to do without it. Moreover, the idea of ​​the internal transformation of a person upon meeting Christ (and this happened with both the Sinner and the Pharisees) is shown by him in the poem consistently and convincingly with artistic point vision. Moreover, the poet even emphasized that the sinner is not condemned by others at all, she is a legitimate part of this world, which Christ came to save. She is, if you like, a symbol of this world, the personification of carnal pleasure as a life value.

The very image of a harlot, a fallen woman in Tolstoy’s contemporary poetry often became a reason for sharpening social issues, a call for mercy and compassion towards the “outcast” in general. And the gospel analogy in such cases faded into the background and was used only to contrast with the modern hard-hearted world. Or it became a lesson-reproach. What Christ did with the soul of a sinner was often thought of as a universal means of getting rid of social vices - through the renunciation of condemnation in the name of “love and forgiveness.” True, Christ, as we remember, says to her in the Gospel: “Go and sin no more,” that is, he calls sin sin and thereby pronounces his judgment on the harlot. Otherwise, a person will generally turn into an “innocent”, “fallen” “victim”, deserving only compassion, due to the lack of free will and the possibility of choice. And this is already anti-Christianity.

Of course, one can hardly doubt the deeply religious feeling in nature that animated the great Russian writers, who in their work turned to the image of fallen man, no matter what form he appeared in - a thief, a murderer, a harlot, a drunkard, etc. Oblomov’s heated monologue from Goncharov’s novel of the same name accurately reflects this general “passionate” need of Russian literature to find a person in a person: “Depict a thief, a fallen woman, a pompous fool, and don’t forget the person right away. Where is the humanity? You want to write with your head!.. Do you think that you don’t need a heart to think? No, she is fertilized by love. Extend your hand to a fallen person to lift him up, or weep bitterly over him if he dies, and do not mock him. Love him, remember yourself in him and treat him as yourself...” Only, as we have seen, compassion can turn out to be a seductive cover for social theories that are anti-Christian in nature, deliberately confusing sin and the sinner, so that, under the guise of sympathy for a person, they can quietly teach tolerance to evil. Perhaps the most radical version of such a denial of the guilt of the “fallen woman” is the novel by L.N. Tolstoy's "Resurrection" (1899).

For Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy, in the poem “The Sinner,” another aspect of the consideration of the topic turns out to be more important. If many poets discover the relevance of the gospel plot through sharpening its social meaning, then Tolstoy seeks to emphasize its timeless significance - a religious idea does not need a “modern” masquerade to reach the reader’s heart. On the contrary, he seems to free the story of Christ and the sinner from the too specific attributes of historical time, which gives the poem the features of an artistically developed parable.

Nowhere in “The Sinner” is the heroine named; this story is about man in general, for “who among you is without sin”? In addition, in this poem it is as if one of the the most important values for the writer’s creative consciousness – Beauty. In the description of the servant of “venal love”, after listing the external attributes of a “sinful life”, the significant conjunction BUT is inserted:

Her fancy outfit
Involuntarily attracts the eye,
Her immodest attire
They talk about a sinful life;
But the fallen maiden is beautiful;
Looking at her, it’s unlikely
Before the power of dangerous charm
Men and elders will stand:
<…>

And, casting a shadow on the cheeks,
In all the abundance of beauty,
Intertwined with a pearl thread,
Luxurious hair will fall...

Several “tempting” questions arise here: is the beautiful synonymous with the fallen? Or its consequence? Does this emphasize the physical nature of beauty? Or its independence from moral categories? Or maybe the conjunction “but” contrasts these concepts, indicates their oxymoronic, unnatural combination in one person? The word “charm” is used here in the meaning of “worldly”, “Pushkin” - or religious?

The first clarification appears in the Sinner’s monologue addressed to John, whom she mistakenly mistook for Christ Himself:

I believe only in beauty
I serve wine and kisses,
My spirit is not disturbed by you,
I laugh at your purity! (1, 62)

A meaningful rhyme creates direct opposition: beauty is purity. It turns out that it is impossible to be pure and beautiful at the same time, because you don’t serve two gods, a choice is necessary. And it seems to the “beautiful maiden” that she made the right choice. Only for some reason the entire boastful monologue of the Sinner is called “weak grievances.” Maybe the pride that awoke in her when hearing stories about a wonderful teacher hides something else? Internal uncertainty about your own choice? Feeling of fragility, temporaryness of your “beauty”? Fear of looking into your own soul?

However, Christ appears, and the epithet “beautiful” passes to him:

Lying around his beautiful lips,
The bar is slightly forked... (1, 63)

It is curious that the “beautiful lips” of the Savior in Tolstoy’s poem will not utter a word. This reflected not only the artistic, but also the spiritual tact of the poet: Christ has already said everything in the Gospel. Translating his words into modern poetic language is fraught with profanation (by the way, this may be another explanation for why Tolstoy does not remember the phrase about the stone). Even his appearance among people is compared to a “breath of silence”: the noisy talk falls silent, the world seems to listen to the quiet steps of the Son of Man. Therefore, the miraculous transformation of the Sinner takes place thanks to His “sad gaze” - and in silence.

And that gaze was like a ray of the morning star,
And everything was revealed to him,
And in the dark heart of a harlot
He dispersed the darkness of the night... (1, 64)

This gaze brings insight: the sinner begins to realize her own darkness, for she saw the light and separated the darkness from the light.

This is akin to the creation of the world - a miracle of the spiritual birth of man, a sacrament impossible without repentance. “The Apostle Paul calls for such repentance - for resurrection from spiritual death: “Awake, you who sleep... and rise from the dead, and Christ will illuminate you” (Eph. 5:14). The story of the converted harlot appears as a kind of analogue to the story of the resurrected Lazarus; as St. says Macarius the Great, “The coffin is the heart, where your mind and your thoughts are buried and kept in impenetrable darkness. The Lord comes to the souls in hell crying out to him, that is, into the depths of the heart, and there he commands death to release the imprisoned souls... Then, having rolled away the heavy stone lying on the soul, he opens the coffin, resurrects like a mortified soul, and brings it out, imprisoned in prison , to the light."

And now, after the heroine’s inner insight, the answer to the question about the essence of Beauty becomes obvious - it was the very gift that the maiden misused:

How many blessings, how much strength
The Lord generously gave her... (1, 64‒65)

In a strict sense, any gift from God is not a gift in the everyday meaning of the word, since a gift does not imply responsibility for it. And in the gospel context, a gift is the very talent that should not be buried in the ground or thoughtlessly wasted, as the Sinner did with her beauty, forcing her to serve debauchery, impurity, and evil. And in the end, she herself perverted the initial nature of this gift, abused it, that is, herself.

And she fell on her face, sobbing,
Before the shrine of Christ (1, 65).

Tears in this case are the purest manifestation of the soul, which has not yet found new words, but has already been freed from the old ones. And the verb “fell” is paradoxically, at first glance, correlated with the epithet “fallen”, which characterized the heroine before meeting Christ. Words with the same root become antonyms here, for falling on one’s face before the shrine of Christ means overcoming a moral and spiritual fall. That is, in a figurative sense, the Sinner “stood up”, “rose up”, and the sad and compassionate gaze of the Savior carries the most important Christian call addressed to the soul of a sinful person: Talifa kumi(Mark 5, 41), “get up and go” (it is no coincidence that these are the only words spoken by the silent Savior in the legend of the Grand Inquisitor in F. M. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Brothers Karamazov”).

Of course, we have a miracle before us, but it is unlikely that it completely excludes the psychological motivation of the heroine’s rebirth. The future transformation seems to be prepared by “weak insults,” which are clothed in the boastful form of the harlot’s bold appeal to John. Apparently, this boasting (even a kind of bet that the sinner makes with others) was born precisely from internal doubt about the correctness of the chosen path. Moreover, when talking about a meeting with Christ and the impact of this meeting on a sinner, it is more appropriate to talk not about evolution, but about the revolution that takes place in the human soul.

In Tolstoy’s works there are other situations that can be called a “graceful shock” of a sinner upon meeting the truth of Christ. Thus, in the “Song of Vladimir’s Campaign to Korsun,” the pagan miraculously changes after Baptism:

Vladimir stood up from the prince's seat,
The merrymakers' singing was interrupted,
And the moment of silence and silence came -
And to the prince, in the consciousness of new beginnings,
‎A new vision has opened:

Like a dream, my whole past life flashed by,
I sensed the truth of the Lord,
And tears flowed from my eyes for the first time,
And Vladimir imagines: for the first time he
I saw my city today (1, 652–653).

This is how love regenerates the lyrical hero of some of Tolstoy’s poems, for example, “Me, in the darkness and in the dust...”, “Not the wind, blowing from above...”, freeing his soul from everyday “trash” and revealing the main thing.

The ending of the poem evokes several literary associations at once.

Firstly, this is how the resurrection of the convict Rodion Raskolnikov will be described in the epilogue of the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky’s “Crime and Punishment”: “He himself did not know how it happened, but suddenly something seemed to pick him up and seem to throw him at her feet. He cried and hugged her knees." In this sense, Tolstoy's poem, like many works Russian literature, implements the national Easter archetype: showing the horror and darkness of the fall, spiritual death - it leads a person to light and resurrection.

Secondly, the poem by A.S. ends almost the same way. Pushkin's "Beauty":

But, having met her, embarrassed, you
Suddenly you stop involuntarily,
Reverently
Before the shrine of beauty.

The shrine of Christ is a shrine of true beauty

The last analogy, we dare to suggest, points to a completely conscious (inherently polemical) reminiscence in the poem by A.K. Tolstoy and puts an end to the development of the motif of beauty in “The Sinner”: the shrine of Christ is the shrine of true beauty. The one who will “save the world.” Other shrines are false idols. This probably contains an explanation, at first glance, of the phrase “shrine of Christ”, strange in its grammatical ambiguity - in the strict sense, impossible precisely in the Gospel context. On the one hand, what is holy for Christ becomes holy for the heroine, thereby she abandons the old hierarchy of values, accepting the new one with all her soul. On the other hand, Christ himself for the heroine becomes a shrine, an object of reverent worship - as if the Church even before the Church.

Thus, the poem “The Sinner” is created by A.K. Tolstoy for an artistic solution to several important questions at once: about the nature and essence of beauty, about the hierarchy of the physical and spiritual, about the meaning of the Coming of Christ, and finally, about the relationship between the eternal and the actual: any person, regardless of the era, can be (and should become) a sinner , transformed by the meeting with the Savior.

"John of Damascus"

One of the best poetic creations of A.K. Tolstoy's "John of Damascus" did not have the success among his contemporaries that befell "The Sinner." This poem was interpreted by most contemporaries (the most striking example is N.S. Leskov, who believed that Tolstoy “portrayed himself” in the main character) from an “autobiographical” point of view. There is a certain reason for this: the poem begins with a description of John’s apparently prosperous life at the caliph’s court, but “wealth, honor, peace and affection” do not satisfy the hero’s spiritual needs; rather, on the contrary, they become a prison for his spirit and his gift. That is why the plea of ​​the “successful courtier” sounds so passionately: “Oh, let me go, Caliph, / Let me breathe and sing in freedom!”

Here the deeply personal, hidden dissatisfaction of A.K. himself was poetically expressed. Tolstoy own life, which he directly decided to admit only in letters to his beloved: “ I was born an artist but all the circumstances and my whole life have so far resisted my becoming quite an artist..." (S.A. Miller dated 10/14/1851). “I don’t live in my environment, I don’t follow my calling, I don’t do what I want, there is complete discord within me...” (S.A. Miller, 1851. (55)). “But how can you work for art when you hear words from all sides: service, rank, uniform, superiors etc? How to be a poet when you are absolutely sure that you will never be published and, as a result, no one will ever know you? I cannot admire the uniform, and I am forbidden to be an artist; What can I do if I don’t fall asleep?..” (S.A. Miller dated July 31, 1853. (63)).

Here we touch on another problem of Alexei Konstantinovich, which can be called family: the mother and her brothers persistently “move” their beloved offspring up the career ladder, starting from Sunday games with the heir to the throne and ending with high court positions (adjutant, master of ceremonies), the latter of which - the huntsman of the court - according to the table of ranks he corresponds to the privy councilor, that is, he is a “general”. How can one not recall Tolstoy’s playful appeal to the ancient patron of the Muses: “Don’t let me, Phoebus, be a general, / Don’t let me become innocently stupid!” (“Filled with the eternal ideal...”). The request with which the hero of Tolstoy’s poem addresses the caliph, in reality, the author managed to pronounce only two years after writing the work; so the beginning of “John of Damascus” can to some extent be considered both a “sublimation” of the poet’s specific intention, and a kind of rehearsal of the subsequent request for resignation: “Sire, service, whatever it may be, is deeply disgusting to my nature; I know that everyone should benefit the fatherland to the best of their ability, but there are different ways to benefit. The path shown to me for this by Providence is mine. literary talent, and any other path is impossible for me...<…>I thought... that I would be able to conquer the artist’s nature within myself, but experience showed that I fought against it in vain. Service and art are incompatible, one thing harms the other, and a choice must be made.<…>Your Majesty’s noble heart will forgive me if I beg you to finally resign me, not in order to move away from you, but to follow a clearly defined path and no longer be a bird flaunting other people’s feathers” (Alexandru II, August or September 1861. (139–140)).

So, certain grounds for a “personal-biographical” interpretation of the problems of the poem “John of Damascus” are obvious. However, with one significant amendment: we are talking exclusively about the beginning of the poem, about its first chapter, that is, about the introduction. The contradiction between the appointment of the hero and his official role at the court of the caliph, the resolution of this contradiction is only a condition for the subsequent movement of Damascus along his path, to which the poem is dedicated. The caliph, as we remember, heeded the singer’s plea without offense or conditions, so John does not take away any internal conflict from his rich palace:

"In your chest
I have no power to restrain my desire:
Singer, you are free, go,
Where does your calling take you? (1, 31)

Determining one’s own calling, internal dissatisfaction with oneself and a life that contradicts one’s calling - all this is a kind of “pretext” of Tolstoy’s poem, whose lyrics often pose the problem of choosing a path (see, for example: “Only one will I remain with myself...”, “ I recognized you, holy convictions...", "Darkness and fog obscure my path..."), but John is shown as a man who had already realized his path by the beginning of the work.

Attracted by another calling,
I cannot rule the people:
I was born simple to be a singer,
To glorify God with a free verb.
In a crowd of nobles there is always one,
I am full of torment and boredom;
Among the feasts, at the head of the squads,
I hear other sounds;
Their irresistible call
I am drawn more and more towards myself... (1, 29)

Only awareness is not movement. And a perfect choice does not mean that in the future the hero will not have to face the problem of choice again and again. It is also worth pointing out that from the life of St. John Tolstoy does NOT choose the most famous episode for his poetic interpretation - the miraculous return of the saint’s right hand, which was severed by an unjust sentence. Perhaps here, as in a similar case with “The Sinner,” where the poet deliberately did not use the famous words of Christ about the stone, the “against the grain” motif is at work: Tolstoy is not interested in public roads, although this explanation is too universal to provide clarity in a specific case. Let us assume that the author’s artistic task does not require turning to John’s healing through the intervention of the Most Holy Theotokos, since the composition of the poem assumes only one climactic episode. And it is connected with the most important, in Tolstoy’s opinion, test that awaits Damascus after his release from court life.

The hero’s path is the path to Christ and at the same time to oneself

Damascene’s famous monologue-prayer “I bless you, forests” is harmonious and bright; the most important contradiction between life and purpose has been removed, the choice of subject for spiritual chanting was made from the very beginning: “Rattle only in the name of Christ, / My enthusiastic word.” The hero’s path is the path to Christ and at the same time to himself. However, this path cannot be easy. The most difficult choice confronts John not in the royal palaces, not in the bustle of the capital of Damascus, but in the blessed monastery of St. Sava, where the merciless sentence of the spiritual mentor will sound:

But from now on you must postpone
Unnecessary thoughts, fruitless fermentation;
The spirit of idleness and the charm of song
Fasting, singer, you must win.
If you came as a hermit to the desert,
Know how to trample worldly dreams,
And on the lips, having humbled my pride,
You put a seal of silence;
Fill your spirit with prayer and sorrow -
Here are my rules for your new beginning!” (1, 37–38).

It is curious that in the original source of Tolstoy’s work - the life (as presented by St. Demetrius of Rostov, which was included in the Cheti-Menaion) John with joyful humility takes a vow of silence. The hero of the poem is literally crushed by the “stone” sentence. He was ready for anything except this:

So this is where you were hiding, renunciation,
What I promised more than once in prayers!
My joy was singing,
And You, Lord, chose him as a sacrifice! (1, 38–39).

Perhaps the folk archetype of a frivolous promise, realized in many fairy-tale plots, was manifested here, when the hero agrees to a condition, not realizing that he will have to give up the most precious thing he has (for example, his own child). Tolstoy’s John clearly did not intend to make just such a sacrifice. But there is a stern logic in the decision of the monk: self-denial, necessary to get closer to God, means abandonment of oneself. The burden of the old man must be thrown off in order to be resurrected in soul. True, this logic assumes that the poetic gift of Damascus is precisely a charm, that is, a sin or weakness that needs to be fought. And the more dear this weakness is to John, the more severe and consistent the struggle should be.

However, isn’t there a terrible substitution happening here - instead of renouncing sin, isn’t there a renunciation of the soul? For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.(Matt. 16:25). These words of Christ seem to confirm the inexorable correctness of the elder: the soul, captivated by the charm of the chant, that is, overwhelmed by pride, that is, dead, must be “thrown into the fire”, only in this way is resurrection possible (remember, at first glance, a similar episode in “The Sinner” , when the heroine realizes how wrongly she has used the gift of life and beauty, and abandons herself as “decrepit”, “lovely”, in order to fall in repentance “before the shrine of Christ”).

In any case, the motive of death begins to sound in the poem precisely after the vow of silence that John takes. In fact, he had no choice in this case - obedience is one of the key conditions of the path that Damascus initially chose. But the hero does not gain any grace-filled immersion in the heartfelt contemplation of God, nor mental (unpronounceable) prayer, nor the joy of liberation from the lies of “expressed thoughts.” On the contrary, he is still depressed by the irreparable loss, and his internal overflow of images and “unsung psalms” demands and does not find a way out, burning him from the inside. Having blocked his lips with a seal of silence, the hero is unable to “block” the chaos from which “consonances” and “waking thoughts” continue to call to him. The internal conflict of Damascus is also emphasized by the fact that the “statutory words” and “memorized prayers,” which he repeats in the hope of finding peace as agreement with himself, do not work, are deprived of their healing power - precisely because they are “statutory and memorized.”

And the idle gift became my punishment,
Always ready to wake up;
So he waits only for the wind to blow
There is a smoldering fire under the ashes.
Before my restless spirit
Images are crowded together,
And, in silence, above a sensitive ear,
The rhythmic harmonies tremble;
And I, not daring to be sacrilegious
To call them to life from the kingdom of darkness,
I drive back into the chaos of the night
My unsung psalms.
But in vain I, in a fruitless battle,
I repeat the statutory words
And memorized prayers -
The soul takes its rights!
Alas, under this black robe,
Like those days under the crimson,
Burned alive by fire,
The heart is restless. (1, 41–42)

A significant parallel: the heart does not accept the “condition” of monastic life, just as it did not accept the “grandeur, pomp, power and strength” of the caliph’s palace life. Has nothing essentially changed, and the hero’s soul, instead of being freed, has only found a new prison? It is unlikely, of course, that Damascene himself thinks so; what is more important here is his direct emotional experience, heartache, which has yet to develop into spiritual acquisition. But in any case, the essence of the conflict is between the “external” and “internal” person, between obedience (silence) and the “disobedient” heart (word). The outcome of this conflict is predetermined by the meaningful line: “The soul takes its rights!” That is, by imposing a cruel vow on John, the elder violated the “rights” of his soul? We dare to suggest that the category of “right,” so beloved by Tolstoy in the socio-political sense, here acquires a new semantic connotation. This is not about a contradiction between rights and obligations. The rebellious soul of the hero is right. This is already clear to the reader, and will soon become obvious to characters poems.

Here, at this moment of tragic discord with his soul, Damascene finds himself faced with a real and very difficult choice: to violate the elder’s prohibition or to refuse the request of his brother, dejected by the loss of a loved one.

One monk came up to the mournful one,
He fell to his knees before him and said: “Help, Joanna!
My brother according to the flesh has passed away; he was like a brother to me.
A heavy sorrow consumes me; I would like to cry -
Tears do not flow from the eyes, but boil in a sorrowful heart.
You can help me: just write a touching song,
A funeral song for a dear brother, so that when you hear it,
I could cry, and my melancholy would be relieved!” (1, 43)

Compassion wins, releasing the word that languished in the soul of Damascus

Isn’t the most important Christian virtue - merciful help to one’s neighbor, for whose sake one can forget both oneself and one’s vow (that is, suffer oneself in order to alleviate his suffering)? But in this situation something more is tested: John’s ability to live without the gift of speech. Or maybe the vow of silence itself, its spiritual meaning, is being tested? Compassion wins, releasing the word that languished in the soul of Damascus. And it is no coincidence that this word about death - as if some emotional and philosophical summation of this topic was summed up: the decay and desolation of the rich palaces of John, the deathly landscape of the desert, the death of the soul, the death of a brother... The famous troparion of Damascus in Tolstoy's poem is an artistically accurate transcription of the stichera of the saint about frailty of earthly existence.

What sweetness in this life
Are you not involved in earthly sadness?
Whose wait is not in vain,
And where is the happy one among people?
Everything is wrong, everything is insignificant,
What we have acquired with difficulty -
What glory on earth
Standing, firm and immutable?
All ashes, ghost, shadow and smoke,
Everything will disappear like a dusty whirlwind,
And we stand before death
And unarmed and powerless.
The hand of the mighty is weak,
The royal commands are insignificant -
Receive the deceased slave,
Lord, to the blessed villages! (1, 46)

Content-wise, this troparion sets a certain independent “vertical” for understanding the problem of choice in the poem: between the earthly and the heavenly, between the perishable and the eternal, between the vain and the important. It remains to understand to which sides of the antithesis the word and silence belong. If the word is only the vain self-expression of a sinful earthly man, his spiritual impulses and sensual passions, then naturally, the ban on speech should bring the hero closer to eternity. But then it turns out that the solemn chant about life and death is sinful from the very beginning and seems to deny itself. In this situation, a question arises that requires an immediate answer: what is the nature of the gift of speech? For the elder who accused John of violating his vow, the answer is obvious - the soul speaks in words, the spirit speaks in silence. According to the monastic charter, severe penance is imposed for disobedience, and Damascene accepts it resignedly and even joyfully, as if recognizing the rightness of his spiritual father. In any case, the punishment removes a heavy stone from his soul, which, so to speak, was formed gradually - from the moment of the ban until its violation.

And the elder’s speech reached Damascus;
Having learned the penance conditions,
The singer hurries to make amends;
Hastens to honor the unheard-of statute;
Joy was replaced by bitter sorrow.
Without a murmur, he took the shovel in his hands,
The singer of Christ does not think of mercy,
But he endures humiliation for God’s sake. (1, 52)

We can say that he could not help but do something wrong, just like the hero of the story by N.S. Leskov “The Man on the Clock” (1887). Postnikov could not help but save the man. But, punished for leaving his post, he perceives this punishment as fair! This is religious consciousness. Yes, life is designed in such a way that sometimes it is impossible not to sin. But this does not mean that a person has the right to say about himself: “I am not guilty.” He can only hope that he will be forgiven, that his guilt will be absolved - voluntary or involuntary. And the joy of the punished is completely natural, because external punishment not only eases the main burden - the pangs of conscience, but is also perceived as a promise of mercy and atonement for guilt.

Damascene does not look for excuses and does not try to forgive himself. The Mother of God intercedes for John and reveals the true nature of his gift:

Why, old man, did you block
Mercilessly that source is strong,
Which the world would drink
Healing and abundant water!
Is this what grace is for in life?
The Lord sent to his creatures,
May they be subjected to fruitless torture
Execute and kill yourself? (1, 54)

Life and sin are not identical concepts

The gift of speech is Divine in origin, and it depends on the person himself whether he will become the “beauty of song” or will glorify His Giver. The gift of speech of Damascus served the Lord, and therefore the vow of silence is violence not just against a person’s soul, but against the spirit that spoke through his lips. John could not disobey the elder when taking a vow. But, finding himself in a situation of choice and violating the will of his spiritual father, in a paradoxical, at first glance, way, he thereby fulfills the will of the Heavenly Father. Consequently, the spiritual father was not the conductor of this will. Chernorizets understands this thanks to the appearance of the Mother of God, which opens his eyes to the most important truth: life and sin are not identical concepts. It generally shows up here general feature Russian religious tradition– spiritual service does not deny the world, but strives to enlighten it, to mercifully and humbly accept it. In this sense, the antithesis of John and the monk will subsequently be echoed by the contrast between the bright old man Zosima and the gloomy father Ferapont in “The Brothers Karamazov” by F.M. Dostoevsky. And the very appearance of the Mother of God, after which John receives the legal opportunity to “glorify God with a free verb,” may become one of the explanations why A.K. Tolstoy did not address the episode with the severed hand of the saint, which was miraculously healed by the Intercessor. The poet caught the inner consonance of two events in the life of John with his spiritual ear - and showed only one of them. And thanks to the hidden analogy, the shown event acquires additional “volume” and shimmers with new meanings. Unjust deprivation of a hand and a word, humble acceptance and suffering, finally healing - the return of a gift. This general pattern, the spiritual composition of human life: from death to resurrection. That is, the “injustice” of this or that test is very conditional; only a short-sighted earthly view will see here some kind of violation of the right to life and health (John did not commit the crime for which he was accused and for which he was deprived of his right hand) or to freedom of speech. Otherwise, then the monk becomes a censor, and the whole poem is reduced to a pamphlet, as A.N. saw it. Maykov:

Here is Damascus by Alexei Tolstoy - it hurts for the author!
How many inspired colors and features have been lost for nothing.
What did he spend his life on? To protest for “free speech”
Against censorship, and a pamphlet was published instead of a wonderful legend.
All because speaker's face he didn’t see before him… .

The providence, the supreme necessity of the hero’s deprivation is obvious from a spiritual perspective: in order to be resurrected, one must die. Moreover, here this is not subject to the rigid scheme of “crime-punishment-correction”, like the keeping of “accounting accounts” in the book of human destiny. The saint did not commit a fall or crime. But the sufferer Christ was absolutely innocent. And Damascene himself, at the beginning of the poem, laments why he is not a contemporary of the Savior and cannot share His burden. The Lord seemed to hear these complaints and fulfill the prayer of His singer. Resurrection cannot be earned, one must grow into it... suffer.

You, whose best aspirations
They perish for nothing under the yoke,
Believe, friends, in deliverance -
We are coming to God's light.
You, bent over,
You, depressed by chains,
You, buried with Christ,
You will rise with Christ! (1, 52)

The poem ends with a bright Easter chord:

Ring out, my Sunday song,
Like the sun rise above the earth!
Break the murderous dream of existence
And radiant light everywhere,
Thunder what was created by darkness! (1, 56)

It is noteworthy that last words in the poem - “Whom to praise in your verb / Will never cease / Not every blade of grass in the field, / Not every star in the sky” - literally sends us to the beginning of the poem, to the prayer of Damascus “I bless you, forests.” Only now the blade of grass and the star are not the “object of blessing” of the singer, but themselves are a source of praise to the Lord. It’s as if the “verb” has now become a property not only of a person, but of the whole world: the “deaf-mute universe” began to sound, and this is somehow connected with the fact that his gift returned to Damascus.

Of course, Tolstoy’s poem is about choice and path, and moreover, about the meaning of existence, about the name for which a person comes into the earthly world. But this is the way of the man of the Word - in the high meaning of God's gift. Moreover, this gift of Damascene is associated not only with the glorification of the Creator (and in this regard, man is part of the global “orchestra”, the created world), but also with struggle, opposition to “darkness,” silence, evil and death. It turns out that this is the “peculiarity” of a person, his “specific” purpose, which sets him apart from the general symphony. One way or another, Tolstoy’s poem sets the most important “coordinates” for the artistic understanding of one of the eternal themes - the theme of words, creativity, art and its purpose.

Tolstoy considers the opposition between the “secular,” “secular,” and “ecclesiastical” understandings of art to be false—or, in any case, he finds a “common point” where they meet. Modern researcher Yu.K. Gerasimov cites a fragment from a letter from S.T. Aksakova: “You cannot profess two religions with impunity. It is a vain idea to combine and reconcile them. Christianity now sets a task for art that it cannot fulfill, and the vessel will burst,” and then proposes to perceive Tolstoy’s poem as an artistic refutation of Aksakov’s thought (in any case, as an exception to the rule): “Tolstoy’s high example of John of Damascus, the singer and a zealot of faith, with the lyrical declarations of the poem and the very fact of its creation, he affirmed the fundamental compatibility, the possibility of merging art and religion. Poets, he believed, have the gift of feeling and singing the divine harmony of the world.”

And here it becomes clear why the Monk Damascene became the hero of the poem - not only as the recognized author of canonical religious stichera, but also as “a fighter for the honor of icons, the fence of art.” This refers to his famous “words” against the iconoclasts, revealing the essence of icon painting through the relationship between the visible and the invisible in the Divine image.

“For it was not the nature of the flesh that became the Divinity, but just as the Word, remaining what It was, without experiencing change, became flesh, so the flesh became the Word, without losing what it is; it is better to say: being one with the Word by hypostasis . Therefore, I boldly portray the invisible God, not as invisible, but as having become visible for our sake through participation in both flesh and blood. I do not depict the invisible Deity, but through an image I express the flesh of God, which was visible (1, IV).

How will the invisible be depicted? How will the incomparable be compared? How will that which has no quantity and magnitude and is unlimited be inscribed? How will something without form be endowed with qualities? How will the incorporeal be painted? So, what is mysteriously shown [in these places]? It is clear that when you see the incorporeal one made human for your sake, then make an image of His human appearance. When the invisible one, clothed in flesh, becomes visible, then depict the likeness of Him who appeared. When He Who, being, by virtue of the excellence of His nature, is deprived of body and form and quantity and quality and magnitude, Who in the image of God, I take on the form of a servant, through this you have become limited in quantitative and qualitative terms and have clothed yourself in a bodily image, then draw it on the boards and expose it for contemplation of the One Who Desired to Appear. Draw the ineffable. His condescension, birth from the Virgin, baptism in the Jordan, transfiguration on Tabor, suffering who freed us from passions, death, miracles - signs of His divine nature, performed by divine power through the activity of the flesh, the saving cross, burial, resurrection, ascension to heaven; Draw everything with words and paints. Don't be afraid, don't be afraid! (1, VII)<…>

The incorporeal and formless God was once not depicted in any way. Now that God has appeared in the flesh And live with people, I depict the visible side of God. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake, who deigned to dwell in matter and through matter. who did my salvation, and I will not cease to honor the substance through which done my salvation" (1, XVI).

Thus, through the very choice of the hero and the mention of his defense of icons, that is, thanks to the historical and religious allusion-analogy, Tolstoy addresses a very topical topic related to contemporary aesthetic (or rather, anti-aesthetic) trends. This will later be reflected in the poem “Against the Current” (1867), which refers to the “days of relaxed Byzantium”, when the “destroyers of icons” triumphed. Before nihilism received its name as a phenomenon of the 1860s, two years earlier than the publication of Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons,” almost simultaneously with the articles of Pisarev and his radical associates, in the updated G.E. In Blagosvetlov’s journal “Russian Word,” the poet points out a serious danger that not only literature, but also society as a whole is about to face. V.S. Solovyov emphasized the fidelity of this hidden analogy in Tolstoy’s poem, speaking about the iconoclasts and their denial of the possibility of depicting the “incorporeal”: “Here, undoubtedly, the very principle of Beauty and the true knowledge of art were denied, albeit unconsciously. The same point of view is held by those who consider everything aesthetic to be the realm of fiction and idle fun... Tolstoy was not mistaken: what he fought for against the prevailing trend in his time was, in essence, the very same thing for which John of Damascus and his supporters stood against iconoclasm".

True, the extremely ascetic old man (seemingly unrelated to iconoclasm) can also be correlated with “nihilists”-pragmatists-utilitarians who deny the “useless charm” of chanting. Indeed, it turns out that “by bringing together... all the persecutors of art and beauty and contrasting them with his ideal of a Christian poet, the author combined the acquired internal unity of the poem’s concept with the integrity of the hero’s spiritual appearance in all his fields.”

Of course, with a holistic analysis of the religious poems of A.K. Tolstoy needs to consider them in close relationship with each other, as components of a certain cycle, a kind of “Easter dilogy”, although not directly indicated by the author himself. In fact, these poems continue one another - both at the “chronological” level ( – Sacred Tradition), it is no coincidence that John can only dream of being a contemporary of Christ, and at the metaphysical level: if the story of the Sinner is connected with the transformation of the soul thanks to the meeting with the Savior, then the story of Damascus is the path of the transformed soul through earthly trials and temptations. If we draw a distant analogy with Dostoevsky’s novels, then the harlot who has fallen on her face correlates with the epiphany of the convict Raskolnikov, the finale of Crime and Punishment, which shows, as it were, the birth of a new man; A " new story“This “new man” is described in the novel “The Idiot,” where the sinless hero constantly faces the relativity of earthly choices. The theme of Beauty in its connection with Divine truth is also important for understanding the spiritual issues of each of the poems: the artificiality, falsity, and destructiveness of the opposition between the beautiful and the holy are overcome by the end of the works. Finally, both poems are connected by the common Easter idea of ​​the resurrection of the soul and the image of Christ, which appears in reality in the first poem and appears before the inspired gaze of the hymnist for the glory of God in the second.

The image of Christ in the works of A.K. Tolstoy appears again at about the same time, only in lyric poetry: in the poem “Raphael’s Madonna” (before May 1858):

Leaning towards the young Christ,
Mary overshadowed him,
Heavenly love has eclipsed
Her earthly beauty.
And He, in deep insight,
Already entering into battle with the world,
Looks forward - and with a clear eye
He sees Golgotha ​​before him. (1, 709–710)

Shortly before the publication of the poem, an essay by A.V. was published in the same magazine “Russian Messenger”. Nikitenko (by the way, the censor of the first published work of A.K. Tolstoy - the story “The Ghoul”, 1841) “Raphael’s Sistine Madonna”: “Isn’t it because the Child’s face is so thoughtful that he vaguely sees his difficult earthly future, and as a creature, Having just become a man, feels, as if instinctively, the first thrill of sorrowful human existence? We would venture to suggest that the remark about the thoughtfulness and prophetic gift of the Infant Christ at the beginning of His sorrowful earthly journey could have influenced the magazine edition of Tolstoy’s poem, although dedicated to another painting by the same artist.

Poem by A.K. Tolstoy in the magazine publication had a different title - La Madonna della Seggiola - and a slightly different beginning of the second stanza: “And He, in deep thinking, / Already preparing for battle with life, / Looks into the distance...” (1, 982). Thinking, which has become an insight, indicates an important shift in emphasis - from rational, “philosophical” knowledge of the world - to mysterious-spiritual comprehension, intimate knowledge - including one’s tragic mission in this world. Before us is not a sage, not a thinker, but the Son of God. From birth He begins His path to which He is destined; He “has no time” for “preparation,” therefore the Baby immediately sees Golgotha ​​as the peak and point of His earthly career. Thus, “insight” merges with the “clear eye,” directed into the region of the Eternal, inaccessible to ordinary vision. And one more important clarification - Christ enters into battle not with life, but with the world. I am the way and the truth and the life(John 14:6) - He who brought victory over death cannot fight with life - in the highest spiritual sense this word. Despite the fact that in Tolstoy’s lyrics “life” is repeatedly personified by “baba”, “Baba Yaga”, and becomes a designation for everything petty, trashy, vain, destructive for the creative aspirations of the soul, here the writer changes this word to “world”, first all meaning earthly existence, not enlightened by the Savior’s sacrifice. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword(Matthew 10:34) - it is also significant that the future suffering on the cross for everyone is inseparable from the struggle, the spiritual sword, just as Love and Anger become the main Divine gifts of the lyrical hero of the poem “Lord, preparing me for battle...”.

And yet, in Tolstoy’s poem we do not see a tender and prayerful contemplation of an icon; there is a lot of aesthetic admiration for the perfect embodiment of a spiritual event in colors and lines. It is no coincidence that in the third and fourth lines the earthly beauty of Mary is mentioned, as if “fading into the background” of the viewer’s attention thanks to the masterful transfer by the brilliant painter of “heavenly love” in Her human features. This probably reflected not so much the previously noted desire to bring earthly art closer to religious service as a way of praising the Creator, but also the spiritual tact of Alexei Konstantinovich, who never described lyrical works what is depicted on the Orthodox icon. An icon is not created to be admired; one must pray in front of it.

Poetic prayer

Alexey Konstantinovich reflects on prayer, its healing effect on the soul, its miraculous ability to unite spiritually close people, regardless of the distance between them in a letter to S.A. Miller on May 10, 1852: “...of all actions, the most powerful is the action of the soul, and in no position does the soul acquire more extensive development than in bringing it closer to God. Asking God with faith to remove misfortune from a loved one is not a fruitless endeavor, as some philosophers claim, who recognize in prayer only a way to worship God, communicate with Him and feel His presence.

First of all, prayer has a direct and powerful effect on the soul of the person for whom you pray, since the closer you get to God, the more you become independent of your body, and therefore your soul is less constrained by space and matter that separates it from the soul for which she prays.

I am almost convinced that two people who would pray at the same time with equally strong faith for each other could communicate with each other, without any material help and despite the distance.

This - direct action on thoughts, on desires, and therefore - on the decisions of that kindred soul. I always wanted to have this effect on you when I prayed to God... and it seems to me that God heard me... and that you felt this effect - and my gratitude to God is endless and eternal...<…>May God protect you, may He make us happy, as we understand, i.e. may He make us better."

And one more remarkable passage from Tolstoy’s letter to his nephew, Andrei Bakhmetev: “Everything depends on you; but if you ever feel that you might go crazy, pray well to God, and you will see how strong you will become and how easy it will become for you to walk along the honest road” (from 08/17/1870 (351)).

Prayer in the writer’s work is presented in a very diverse way - in almost all major works: prayers of Ivan the Terrible (the novel “Prince of Silver”, “The Death of Ivan the Terrible”), Fyodor Ioannovich (“Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”), John of Damascus (the poem “John of Damascus” ) and etc.

But Tolstoy’s actual lyrical appeal to God is the same: the poem “I dozed off, my head drooping...” (until May 1858).

I dozed off, head down,
And I don’t recognize my former strength;
Die, Lord, of the living storm
For my sleepy soul.

Like a voice of reproach, above me
Roll your calling thunder,
And burn off the rust of peace,
And sweep away the ashes of inaction.

May I rise up, lifted up by You,
And, heeding the punishing words,
Like a stone from a hammer blow,
I will release the hidden fire! (1, 362)

It consists of three quatrains and is compositionally organized logically and strictly: in the first quatrain - the reason for the request and the request itself ( I dozed off, I don’t recognize it - die); in the second quatrain - clarification of what the lyrical hero asks for ( roll, burn, sweep away); in the third - the desired result of the influence of Divine help on his soul ( I'll wake up and publish).

Noteworthy is the abundance of Old Church Slavonic vocabulary in this poem: “chapter”, “voice”, “dust”, “will rise up”, “raised”, “mlata”. On the one hand, this actualizes the heritage XVIII century, when the church genre itself in the classicist “coordinate system” was transformed into a spiritual ode. Let us remember, for example, “Morning reflection on God’s majesty...” by M.V. Lomonosov, some lines from which Tolstoy seems to quote:

Creator! covered in darkness for me
Spread out the rays of wisdom...

On the other hand, the Church Slavonic vocabulary in Tolstoy’s poem does not create the pathos of special solemnity, the significance of a conversation with the Almighty (as one would expect, bearing in mind the development of classicist traditions in the lyrics of the 19th century); on the contrary, oddly enough, the intonation of this conversation is sincere and “intimate”; communication with the Lord occurs as if “face to face”, without outside “listeners” or witnesses. It can be assumed that the Slavicisms here simply signal the utmost seriousness of the topic and situation. Why did the need for Divine help arise? The poet says this in the first two lines:

I dozed off, head down,
And I don’t recognize my former strengths...

This poetically and laconically conveys a special state of the soul, which was repeatedly interpreted in patristic literature, because sleep has been considered since ancient times one of the synonyms or images of death, and in Christian understanding living and dead, the dream acquires a distinctly spiritual semantic content: Arise, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you(Eph. 5:14). The “drowsy” state of the soul, which is mentioned in Tolstoy’s poem, evokes associations with “petrified insensibility” - a common phrase in the writings of the Church Fathers: “Lord, deliver me from all ignorance and oblivion, and cowardice, and petrified insensibility” (John Chrysostom); “Sometimes there is such a petrified insensibility in the soul that you don’t see or feel your sins; You are not afraid of death, or the Judge, or the terrible judgment; everything spiritual is, as they say, trin-grass. O wicked, oh proud, oh evil flesh!” (John of Kronstadt).

Of course, the feeling (humble recognition) of one’s own insufficiency, sinfulness, weakness, “winglessness” is a necessary condition both for the meeting of the Pushkin prophet with Seraphim (“We are tormented by spiritual thirst, / I dragged myself in the dark desert”), and for the ascension of flame and words to the Fatherland the hero of an earlier Tolstoy poem (“Me, in the darkness and in the dust / Hitherto dragging out the chains...”).

However, here we have an emphatically “earthly”, concrete “self-portrait” sketch – almost at the level of gesture. But this gesture is deeply symbolic: the head is lowered down, that is, the consciousness is immersed in the contemplation of the worldly, everyday, vain. Before us is a hero on the verge of mental death, and he cannot overcome this danger on his own, because he does not recognize his “former strengths.” Of course, we are talking about spiritual powers - the same ones that he received in the earlier poem “Lord, preparing me for battle...”:

Inspired by a powerful word,
Breathed a lot of strength into my heart... (1, 286)

And turning to God in prayer begins with the word “Dohni.” The creature needs not only creation, but also support, constant help from its Creator. The sleepy soul must be awakened by the “living storm.” Most often, even in the poetic dictionary, a storm means the threat of destruction. But here it’s as if it’s the other way around – it’s defined almost by an oxymoron: “life-giving.” That is, the storm is a kind of gracious shock that will revive a dead soul. And further the metaphor of the storm is developed, connecting with the traditional idea of ​​the Lord's punishment in the image of a thunderstorm:

Like a voice of reproach over me
Roll your calling thunder...

What is surprising is that the poet here seems to swap the elements of comparison: it is not the voice of reproach that is compared to thunder, but vice versa, since it is the person who “translates” the majestic natural phenomena, inaccessible to his power. It is also through them that he perceives the Lord.

Even at the phonetic level, the line “Roll your calling thunder” seems to convey the booming sound of heavenly wrath; thanks to this line, the key role of the sound R in the entire poem is revealed: only two lines out of twelve are devoid of words with this sound. Thus, alliteration becomes the most important phonetic “instrumentation” of the semantic motives of Tolstoy’s poetic prayer: doze off, hang down, storm, reproach, thunder, call, roll, rust, ashes, rise up, punishing, blow– these words constitute the “conceptosphere” of the poem and convey the movement of lyrical thought and the development of lyrical experience, creating a certain mood in the reader or speaker of this poem.

And the heavenly fire, not named in the poem, is recognized through another metaphorical action: “burn out the rust of peace.” Peace in general is presented and assessed ambiguously in various works of Tolstoy, cf. for example, in “Vasily Shibanov”:

The king in humble clothes rings the bell.
Does it call back the former peace
Or does conscience bury you forever? (1, 250)

In this context, peace is agreement with one’s own soul, it is the peace of victory over internal demons. And in prayer, peace becomes rust caused by lack of movement. Peace is static. Peace is like death. Peace is inhuman and destructive. Almost at the same time and practically the same thing, L.N. speaks. Tolstoy in one of his letters: “To live honestly, you have to struggle, get confused, fight, make mistakes, start and give up, and start again, and give up again, and always struggle and lose. And calmness is spiritual meanness.”

The motive of death is also developed in the next line: “sweep away the ashes of inaction.” Sound, fire (light) and movement (breath) must defeat the silence, darkness and peace in which the soul of the lyrical hero is immersed. Ashes are a reminder of earthly, mortal nature human body, but this dust must be swept away precisely from the soul, which is the breath of God. And then what is said in the third stanza will happen:

May I rise up, lifted up by You,
And heeding the punishing words,
Like a stone from a hammer blow,
I will release the hidden fire!

Firstly, instead of moving downwards, an ascent will begin - soaring. And secondly, the petrified soul will “let out” fire and free him from captivity. This is the same Divine fire that burns (or smolders) in any person. And thanks to Divine help, he will break out to connect with his original source. This is a living soul - a soul united with God.

It is paradoxical that in prayer, at first glance, the essence of the request comes down not to forgiveness, but to punishment ( voice of reproach in the second stanza it turns into punishing words in the third). It may seem that we are faced with a prayer for punishment. But this punishment must be directed at vices, at what deadens the soul. And then the prayer becomes a request for resurrection.

It is also surprising that, as the prayer is said and the lyrical monologue develops, what the hero asks for happens in reality: his intonation goes upward, and at the end of the poem almost nothing reminds of the initial apathy-drowsiness, and the final exclamation mark - a kind of symbol of victory. The prayer is heard and fulfilled as if at the very moment of utterance, since the desire to free oneself from the worst in oneself, warmed by sincere faith in Divine help, is in itself almost omnipotent.

So, religious issues in the spiritual poetry of A.K. Tolstoy includes a wide range of issues: the relationship between the eternal and the temporary in human earthly life; choice of path; realization of the gift, which is understood as mission and responsibility; Beauty and its relationship with Truth and Goodness; temptation and spiritual death, overcoming which is impossible without Divine help; word and silence; renunciation and obedience; sin and its condemnation. The formulation and solution of these problems is shown by A.K. Tolstoy as a deep and original religious artist-thinker. He is sincerely convinced that the eternal can become relevant without the help of topicality, as long as a person remains human and faces “damned questions” to which each generation must seek its own answer.

I would like to believe that readers of our generation will rediscover the work of this wonderful Russian writer. And this discovery will be akin to the miracle of self-knowledge, spiritual transformation - and movement towards God.

Every year Tolstoy’s desire to leave public service and completely devote himself to the service for which, as he feels, the Lord has destined him - literary creativity. As many researchers note, the cry of the soul that escaped from the lips of one of his most beloved heroes, John of Damascus from the poem of the same name, expresses the spiritual melancholy of Tolstoy himself: “O sovereign, listen: my rank, // Majesty, pomp, power and strength, / / Everything is unbearable to me, everything is disgusting. // I am drawn by a different calling, // I cannot rule the people: // I was born simple to be a singer, // To glorify God with a free verb!”

However, this desire is not destined to come true soon: for many years, Alexei Konstantinovich has not been able to retire; he will receive it only in 1861.

His personal life did not work out for a long time either. Tolstoy's first serious feeling was for Elena Meshcherskaya. However, when Alexey asks his mother for permission to propose to the girl he likes, Anna Alekseevna does not give her blessing. Alexey remains a bachelor.

This situation, in different variations, has been repeated for many years: Tolstoy’s heartfelt inclination towards this or that girl is suppressed by his mother, either directly expressing her disagreement with her son’s choice, or quietly arranging the need for Alexei’s urgent departure either abroad or to one of his relatives. Anna Alekseevna very strictly controls Alexey's life, tries to ensure that he is always with her (Alexey Konstantinovich takes her to theaters and concerts, they visit her friends together), and if he goes somewhere without her, she does not go to bed until he will not return. Such a “family” life does not seem to bother Alexei very much - he was raised in obedience and love for his mother. This idyll, however, is not destined to last forever - Tolstoy finally meets someone with whom he is not ready to sacrifice his relationship so easily. Moreover, from the very first days of their acquaintance he sees in her not only an attractive woman, but also someone who in Church Slavonic is called a “friend”: a comrade-in-arms, a companion on the path of life. And above all, an assistant on the creative path.

“I haven’t done anything yet - I’ve never been supported and always discouraged, I’m very lazy, it’s true, but I feel like I could do something good - if only I could be sure that I would find an artistic echo,” and now I have found it... it's you. If I know that you are interested in my writing, I will work more diligently and better,” he wrote to Sofya Andreevna Miller at the very beginning of their acquaintance. Their relationship was not easy: the husband, from whom Sophie had already left, still did not give her a divorce, and Alexei’s mother, as in all previous cases, was sharply opposed to her son’s chosen one. Seeing that the previous tricks did not work and her son’s intentions were serious, Anna Alekseevna decided to act openly. One evening she told Alexei all the rumors and gossip that were associated with the name of his beloved. The fact is that the beginning of Sofia's social life was overshadowed by a love tragedy: Prince Vyazemsky courted her, as they said, seduced her - and married someone else. Sophia's brother stood up for his sister's honor and was killed in a duel. Light retold this story with pleasure, adding to it, apparently, many others. I.S. Turgenev once wrote to Sofia Andreevna: “They told me a lot of evil about you...”. Anna Andreevna also told her son “a lot of evil” about Sophia. After listening to his mother’s rebuke, Alexey Konstantinovich dropped everything and rushed to Smalkovo, Sofia Andreevna’s estate, to find out the truth from her own lips.

This is how this dramatic date is described. modern novelist Ruslan Kireev: “Sofya Andreevna greeted him calmly. She gave her some linden tea, sat her down near the window, outside which the fallen willows were getting wet under the cold rain, and began her confession.

Slowly... In order... From afar...

Mentally, I have suffered through the past years with you,

I felt everything with you, both sadness and hope,

I suffered a lot, I reproached you for a lot of things...

Then the poet, with his characteristic frankness, admits that he cannot... No, he cannot, but does not want to forget either her mistakes or - an important clarification! – suffering. Her “tears and every word are precious” to him. It is in this poem that the comparison with a drooping tree appears for the first time (aren’t those sad willows outside the window inspired? - E.V.), to which he, big and strong, offers his help.

You lean against me, little tree, against the green elm:

You lean against me, I stand securely and firmly!”

A frank conversation did not destroy their relationship, but, on the contrary, brought the lovers closer together, for Alexei Konstantinovich had a kind, soft heart, capable of pity and forgiveness.

A few years later, during the war, Tolstoy fell ill with typhus and Sofya Andreevna, despite the danger of getting infected, came out, literally pulling him out of the other world.

The last years of his mother's life, Alexey Konstantinovich was torn between her and Sofia. Despite all the difficulties and misunderstandings, despite Anna Alekseevna’s despotism, she and her mother were very close, he was used to sharing joys and sorrows with her, he really sincerely loved the one who had devoted her whole life to him since his birth, and when in 1857 Anna Alexandrovna died, Alexey was inconsolable. But her death finally allowed the lovers to unite - they began to live together. However, her husband gave Sofia a divorce only a few years later - they got married in 1863. The Lord did not give them his own children, but they loved and welcomed strangers very much, for example, their nephew Andreiku, whom Tolstoy treated as his own son.

The love of Alexei Konstantinovich and Sofia Alekseevna has not weakened over the years, and Tolstoy’s letters written to his wife in the last years of his life breathe the same tenderness as the lines of the first years of their communication. So, Tolstoy wrote to her in 1870: “... I can’t lie down without telling you what I’ve been telling you for 20 years now - that I can’t live without you, that you’re my only treasure on earth, and I’m crying over with this letter, as I cried 20 years ago.”

If we approach from the strict point of view of church canons, not everything in the life of Alexei Konstantinovich corresponds to Orthodox norms. For 12 years he lived with his beloved woman unmarried, in fact, in a civil marriage. He did not escape the sinful hobby that engulfed almost the entire secular society in the 19th century - the “table-turning epidemic,” in other words, spiritualism. Several times he attended the “sessions” of the famous spiritualist Hume, who came to Russia. Living abroad, Alexey Konstantinovich attended similar events there too. Although Tolstoy’s rather ironic retellings of the statements of various spiritualists that they allegedly heard from “spirits” have been preserved, Tyutchev noted that in general Tolstoy took table-turning attentively and quite seriously: “The details that I heard from Alexei Tolstoy, who saw Hume at work four times, “surpass all probability: hands that are visible, tables hanging in the air and moving arbitrarily like ships on the sea, etc., in a word, material and tactile evidence that the supernatural exists.”

Both unwed marriage and spiritualism, however, are rather a consequence of the general spiritual relaxation of society in the 19th century. There was something else in the life of Alexei Konstantinovich. For example, his walking pilgrimages to Optina, to the elders. Or his reverent attitude towards prayer, embodied not only in poetry (“I pray and repent, // And I cry again, // And I renounce // From the evil deed...”), but also in reality. Thus, there is evidence of how fervently he prayed during his illness with typhus, which put him in the face of death. What is characteristic is that he prayed not so much for himself, but for dear people, mother and Sofia. Imagine his shock when, after one of these prayers, interrupted by moments of delirium, he opened his eyes and saw Sophia alive by his bed, who had arrived to look after him. Such a heavenly answer to his prayer greatly strengthened Tolstoy’s faith.

This faith, craving for Heaven and longing for it permeates the entire literary work of Alexei Konstantinovich: poems, ballads, plays and prose works. As Tolstoy himself wrote in one of his poems, “I look at the earth with love, // But my soul cries higher.” However, A.K Tolstoy best formulated his literary credo in the poem “John of Damascus”, relating it to the life of his hero - the poet must, through his creativity, join in the praise of God, which exalts the entire world He created (“let every breath praise the Lord...” ): “That he glorifies with free speech // And John praises in songs, // Whom to praise in his verb // They will never cease // Not every blade of grass in the field, // Not every star in the sky.”

I recognized you, holy convictions,
You are the companions of my past days,
When, without chasing a runaway shadow,
And I thought and felt more accurately,
And with a young soul I saw clearly
Everything I loved and everything I hated!

In the midst of a world of lies, in the midst of a world that is alien to me,
My blood has not cooled forever,
The time has come, and you have risen again,
My old anger and my old love!
The fog cleared and God bless,
I'm on the old road!

The power of truth still shines,
Her doubts will no longer be overshadowed,
The planet made an uneven circle
And rolls back towards the sun again,
Winter has passed, nature is turning green,
The meadows are blooming, the fragrant spring is blowing!

Artist Bryullov. A.K. Tolstoy in his youth

In his youth, Alexei Tolstoy was predicted to have a brilliant diplomatic career, but the young man very soon realized that he did not want to manipulate people’s minds. Brought up on the poetry of Lermontov, this representative of a noble noble family tried to imitate his idol in everything. It is possible that it was for this reason that Alexey Tolstoy soon began to write poetry, trying to express his true feelings in them. Just like Lermontov, behind the glitter and tinsel of high society, he saw deceit, affectation and betrayal. Therefore, I promised that I would at least remain honest with myself.

Soon, fate forced Alexei Tolstoy to enter into open confrontation with secular society, which classified the young poet as an outcast. The whole point is that he had the imprudence to fall in love with a married lady, and she reciprocated his feelings. Such romances did not surprise or shock anyone, but when the couple announced their intention to get married, this caused a wave of condemnation among the local aristocracy. The poet’s mother was categorically against this union, so the lovers were able to legalize their relationship only 13 years after they met. It was during that period, in the fall of 1858, that Tolstoy wrote the poem “I recognized you, holy convictions...”.

By this point, the poet had long outgrown the period of youthful maximalism. Nevertheless, the author still managed to preserve in his soul those ideals that were so important to him in his youth. With some degree of sadness, Tolstoy admits that earlier “I thought and felt more accurately,” having a clear idea of ​​what should be loved and what should be hated. But at the same time, Alexei Tolstoy notes: “In the midst of a world of lies, in the midst of a world that is alien to me, my blood has not cooled forever.” He knows he can stand up own opinion, even if it goes against what others think. At the same time, the poet still remains pure in front of himself, since he did not betray his friends and his beloved woman, did not lie and did not try to adhere to the rules of behavior in secular society if he considered them stupid. “The power of truth still shines, its doubts will no longer overshadow it,” the poet notes, implying that he does not repent of his choice of life position.

Sophia Miller

And this concerns not only opposition to high society, but relations with Sophia Miller, whom the poet idolized and considered the standard of femininity despite the fact that long years she remained the legal wife of another person.

[Radio Liberty: Programs: Culture]

The fate of Alexei Tolstoy

Ivan Tolstoy: Our program today is dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the death of the prose writer, playwright, poet, storyteller, publicist, journalist Alexei Nikolaevich Tolstoy, who died on February 23, 1945, a little before Victory Day.

A controversial figure. There are, perhaps, as many admirers of his literary talent as there are opponents of his civic position. I hope that in today’s program, our guest and I will try to understand these contradictions and understand what place Alexei Tolstoy occupies in the history of Russian literature. Our guest today is Inna Georgievna Andreeva, head of the Alexei Tolstoy Museum in Moscow.

First of all, there are several legends around Alexei Tolstoy that I would like to immediately dispel. Inna Georgievna, I count on your help. Origin of the Tolstoy family. They say that the Tolstoys are namesakes - writers, artists, sculptors, etc. - and some say that they are one big family. What does science say about this through your lips?

Inna Andreeva: A large family, originating from the Lithuanian prince Indris or, as it sounds in ancient Lithuanian, Intrius, which means “boar”. Indris had two sons - Litvinos and Zimonten. Zimonten was childless, and from Litvinos a very branched family had already descended - the Tolstoy family. Some historians believe that this same Indris - baptized Leonty - was in fact not Indris, but one of the sons of the Mongol Khan Ten-Gri. In fact, most historians debunk this theory, so we will focus on Indris, the Lithuanian prince. Further, there is a very branched Tolstoy tree, and let's come, specifically, to Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy.

Ivan Tolstoy: Please remind us who this is.

Inna Andreeva: The same Pyotr Andreevich, the famous Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy, diplomat, comrade-in-arms of Peter the Great, envoy to Turkey from Russia, who provided invaluable services to the fatherland and was awarded for this both the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called and the title of count - by the way, this is where the Tolstoy counts come from.

Ivan Tolstoy: Could you please clarify why exactly the Tolstoys received the title of count?

Inna Andreeva: There are already several versions here. One of the most stable versions is that it was not for a very plausible act, that is, it was Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy who brought Tsarevich Alexei back to Russia. There is even such a legend that before his death, Tsarevich Alexei cursed the Tolstoy family to the twenty-sixth generation.

Inna Andreeva: No, it was from Pyotr Andreevich, unfortunately.

Ivan Tolstoy: Then this will last for a long time: What is the fate of Pyotr Andreevich?

Inna Andreeva: He finished poorly. They say that he was exiled, as Peter’s closest ally, to Solovki. Solovki, it turns out, is not as close to the past as it might seem.

Ivan Tolstoy: Is it true that he was exiled there with his son? By the way, he himself was then a very old man.

Inna Andreeva: Yes, definitely. I would like to return to procreation, since the family tree, I repeat, is branched, and this is a topic for a three-hour conversation, if not more. Therefore, we will focus on the subsequent Tolstoys. This is Fyodor Tolstoy, from whom more specific branches have come. Many people are interested in the question of whether Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy and Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, American Tolstoy, Fyodor Konstantinovich Tolstoy, medalist, etc. are relatives. Yes, of course, they are relatives. Look, they have a common ancestor, Pyotr Andreevich Tolstoy. Pyotr Andreevich had two children. One is childless, and along the line of the other son - Ivan - there are already Andrei, Ilya, etc. and from Ilya there are already Lev Nikolaevich, Alexey Konstantinovich - of the same branch. Ivan, who has two sons, Andrei and Fedor, then Fedor has Stepan, Peter, Alexander, etc., and we come to Fedor. Nikolai Alexandrovich, who had five children, and the child of one of them was Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy. When asked which ones specifically family ties from Lev Nikolaevich and Alexey Nikolaevich, you begin to clearly count, and then it turns out that the relatives are very distant - a fourth cousin, grandson, great-great-great-nephew of Lev Nikolaevich. It seems that this is, as they say, “the tenth water on the jelly.” In fact, they have a single ancestor, Peter Andreevich Tolstoy, and therefore, of course, all Tolstoys are relatives.

Ivan Tolstoy: As Blok said, “nobles are all related to each other,” well, and even more so the Tolstoys. There is a persistent legend that Alexei Tolstoy is not his father’s son. There was a big family drama there even before he was born. Please say a few words about this.

Inna Andreeva: Of course, this was a very popular version among the first Russian emigration in the 20s and 30s. Berberova wrote about this. In fact, this is not true at all. Alexey Nikolaevich was the fifth child of Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Tolstoy and his wife, Alexandra Leontyevna Turgeneva. Alexandra Leontyevna Turgeneva, a fairly well-known children's writer in her time, a student, a woman of progressive views. She fell in love with a young commoner, a small nobleman, Alexei Bostrom and went to him, because Nikolai Alexandrovich Tolstoy was a typical, in her opinion, tyrant, and she, like all Russian women, tried to save Alexei Bostrom, and he was unhappy, he had poor health and there were many other factors.

Ivan Tolstoy: I fell in love with the torment.

Inna Andreeva: Of course of course. And she went to Bostrom, but Nikolai Alexandrovich, having met Bostrom on the train - this is known - almost shot at him, found out the address of their location and returned it, by force, to Alexandra Leontievna. They lived together again.

Ivan Tolstoy: Just a Brazilian series.

Inna Andreeva: Come on! At the same time, Bostrom wrote tearful letters, begging Alexandra Leontievna to return, claiming that he could not live without her, etc.

Ivan Tolstoy: So how can you figure out which of them is the child?

Inna Andreeva: In one of the letters, when she refuses to return for serious reasons, she writes that “unfortunately, this has become completely impossible, because I am pregnant and already in my fifth month.” And, nevertheless, Bostrom still persuades her, and she leaves for him, and when the trial at which the Tolstoys were divorced had already taken place, Alexandra Leontyevna swore that the child Alyosha - Alexei Nikolaevich Tolstoy had already been born - Bostrom's son .

Ivan Tolstoy: And yet she knew that she was breaking her oath?

Inna Andreeva: She commits perjury. This time. Second, understand her as a woman and as a mother. Count Tolstoy left three surviving children - the girl Praskovya died at the age of five - Alexander, Elizaveta and Mstislav for himself. He categorically forbade them to communicate with their mother. Therefore, in order to keep at least the little one for herself, she committed perjury. But here's what's interesting. Before his death, Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Tolstoy made a will in favor of his four children, including Alyosha. This suggests that he knew perfectly well that Alexey was his son.

Ivan Tolstoy: A tyrant is a tyrant, but his head did not leave him at the last moment.

Inna Andreeva: You know, we often say, especially visitors to the museum, “Well, what do you want, the count after all.” This sounds very nice.

Ivan Tolstoy: Little Alexey Tolstoy settled with his mother and stepfather on a farm near Samara, and what happened to him next? Which path did he take?

Inna Andreeva: You know, you don’t become a writer right away. In principle, he really loved reading various books with his mother, read a lot, etc., but, nevertheless, he went to study at the famous St. Petersburg Technological Institute. He, in fact, completed it, but did not receive a diploma, but, in principle, completed the entire course of study.

Just in connection with this, whenever you talk about his works, especially those dedicated to technology - “Engineer Garin’s Hyperboloid”, and “Aelita”, and “Riot of the Machines” - you are not surprised at some things that Alexei Tolstoy understood , because he had a serious technical education. But in Russia at the beginning of the century, something unimaginable was happening. Someone became a poet, or it seemed to him that he was becoming a poet, someone a writer, someone an actor. Life was seething, and there was such madness, fear of the future, as if of some kind of catastrophe. And on this wave, all sorts of literary, theatrical, and philosophical associations arose, which young Alexei Tolstoy could not help but pass by. Of course, he also wandered to the famous “Tower” of Vyacheslav Ivanov, to all sorts of literary cabarets, etc. And since his mother’s upbringing, instilling in her a love of language and literature, had its effect and was not in vain, he felt the urge within himself to work with words, with language, and began to write poetry. Having left for Paris, he met Nikolai

Stepanovich Gumilyov, and from here his poetic activity began. Then he met Bryusov, Andrei Bely, Vyacheslav Ivanov, etc. He published two collections of poetry, “Lyrics” and “Beyond the Blue Rivers.” Yes, criticism can blaspheme them for some kind of imitation, for an attempt to juxtapose symbolism. But, nevertheless, they were sincere. They came from the heart, and it was not for nothing that Valery Bryusov praised these poems. Even Gumilyov, who was very sensitive to versification, treated them on the brink - he either scolded them very much, or praised them very much - and recommended Tolstoy as a rather interesting new poet who had appeared on the horizon of Russian literature. “Another Tolstoy,” as he said, and he was right, since Tolstoy’s subsequent work proved that he was a writer by God’s grace.

Ivan Tolstoy: That is, we can say that his mother defeated both his father and stepfather. You said that his mother, Alexandra Leontyevna, was born Turgeneva. What kind of Turgenevs are these? What relation do they have to the writer Ivan Sergeevich?

Inna Andreeva: The Turgenevs also have a very branched tree, but if we take a closer look, she is a relative of Nikolai Turgenev, the same one who was the Decembrist.

Ivan Tolstoy: So, in the same way, Alexander, who was a friend of Pushkin and went to bury him in the Holy Mountains?

Inna Andreeva: Of course, and it must be said that in the biography of Alexei Nikolaevich Tolstoy, whose favorite poet, by the way, was Pushkin, there is a very clear connection with this beloved poet. And from the side of Tolstoy the American, who finally betrothed Goncharova to Pushkin, and from the side of Alexander Turgenev. That is, Alexei Nikolaevich has very serious connections with Pushkin. In general, I think there are connections there, both biographical and creative, and, by the way, behavioral, which is very interesting, and this is a separate topic for conversation.

Ivan Tolstoy: But the relationship with Nikolai and Alexander Turgenev is also not direct, but cousin. Alexandra Leontyevna was the granddaughter of Boris Turgenev, who was cousin these two. In their letters they called him “the vile serf owner, brother Boris.” So, Alexey Nikolaevich is still not from the Decembrist, and not from Pushkin’s Alexander, but from the “vile serf-owner, brother Boris.” Naturally, we do not choose our own relatives. But what is your relationship with the writer, Ivan Sergeevich?

Inna Andreeva: Very distant.

Ivan Tolstoy: I remember that in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, in my opinion the author was Semevsky, it was said that Nikolai Turgenev (the Decembrist who was in exile and did not return because he was awaiting the death sentence passed by the investigative commission of Nicholas the First) met with Ivan Sergeevich abroad, in Paris, and they considered themselves, the article says, relatives, but, the dictionary entry says, these family ties cannot be traced. Turgenev is the surname of a native of the Golden Horde, and, as far as I remember, young Alexei Tolstoy used, slightly altering, this surname in his early years and even signed with this surname.

Inna Andreeva: You know, I don't remember this.

Ivan Tolstoy: Some of his stories are signed under the pseudonym "Mirza Turgen", and the village where some of his early works take place is called Turenevo.

Inna Andreeva: Of course of course. He was proud of his ancestors.

Ivan Tolstoy: Alexey Tolstoy, for most people, is somehow not associated with the people of the Silver Age, although he grew up all over it and was familiar with a huge number of people. Almost the name of the cabaret "Stray Dog" belongs to him. But still, he is not associated with the Silver Age. Maybe this is some kind of mass delusion, or is there something to it?

Inna Andreeva: You know, in my opinion, this is mass oblivion. Experts associate Alexei Tolstoy with the Silver Age and its representatives. Nevertheless, you were absolutely correct in saying that Tolstoy was one of the founders of the poets’ cafe “Stray Dog”, and, accordingly, the “Comedians’ Halt”. This time. Alexey Nikolaevich Tolstoy was friends with Gumilyov. After they met in Paris, they even published the magazine "Island" - a famous magazine for those interested in the Silver Age.

Hope: I would like the program about such a wonderful personality as Alexey Tolstoy to be multi-part! In my favorite children's book, Nikita's Childhood, one feels some isolation of a family living in the steppe. Is this somehow connected with the fact that his mother, Alexandra Leontyevna, was excluded from social life on a kind of island of nature?

Inna Andreeva: I completely agree with our listener. On the one hand, this was true. On the other hand, Alexandra Leontyevna wanted this. She wanted this dissolution in the family, nature, and in general “Nikita’s Childhood” is a book of happiness. She distances herself from the world in which there are wars, blood, grief. In my opinion, this is the happiest book in the world.

Ivan Tolstoy: No wonder its subtitle is “A Tale of Many Excellent Things.”

Inna Andreeva: Undoubtedly. And this distance, in my opinion, was intentional, and it was deliberately maintained by Alexei Nikolaevich, because he wrote a book about many of the most excellent things - a book of happiness, and happiness cannot coexist with grief.

Ivan Tolstoy: Perhaps we can add to this the fact that he wrote it in a situation of isolation - in emigration, feeling his isolation from his homeland, and this, perhaps, greatly strengthened the feeling that was conveyed to the hero of this story and the entire atmosphere of this farm.

Inna Andreeva: Yes, and this saving of the child from all the troubles of insults is also felt: This, by the way, is my favorite book.

Alexander(Saint Petersburg): I love Tolstoy’s “Nikita’s Childhood” and “The Viper.” I have three questions. First: it’s clear that Blok and Tolstoy are antipodes, but where does such pathological hatred of Blok come from? With Bunin this is clear, but with Tolstoy it’s not entirely clear. Second: Pushkin is everyone’s idol, and among contemporary writers, who was the “significant” writer for Tolstoy’s contemporaries? Proust, Joyce, Kafka - of course, no - they are also antipodes. And third: features of Tolstoy’s style. They say that it has an archaic style and there is no innovation in it. What can you say about this?

Inna Andreeva: In fact, I believe that there was no "nature" of hatred. I understand what our listener means - this is the poet Bessonov in “Walking Through Torment”, Pierrot in “The Golden Key”. There was no hatred. It’s just that Alexey Nikolaevich, being a cheerful, warm, explosive person, did not understand Blok’s coldness. But he certainly understood his poetry. Even if he turns to the diaries of Blok himself, to the diaries of Alexei Nikolaevich - he was Blok’s guest, read his poetry, but it was not his. How some people love Dostoevsky, and others Leo Tolstoy. There was no hatred as such - there was only petty hooliganism, if we talk about “Yegor Abozov” and the literary part of “Sisters”. He played - like with dolls, like with puppets. Perhaps, after all, having in mind a collective image, which Alexey Nikolaevich himself spoke about more than once when he was accused of disliking Alexander Blok. Of course, he revered him as a poet, and one cannot even say that he was friendly, but he was accepted in Blok’s house and spoke very positively about him. Apparently, he simply did not understand him as a person. He seemed to him a very cold and distant person.

Ivan Tolstoy: I would extend what you said not only to Blok, but also to many characters of the Silver Age. In general, maybe to St. Petersburg. Here there was a profound difference in the nature of the psyche of Alexei Tolstoy and the people of the Silver Age. Alexei Nikolaevich, as far as I understand him as a writer, was generally alien to modernism as a whole. Mysticism, idealistic thinking, and all sorts of - as he called it - “fog in literature” were alien to him. He was a writer, of course, with a strong and powerful realistic streak. It is not for nothing that Fyodor Sollogub said words about him that some regard as offensive, but I consider them to be words that hit the mark; he said that “Alyoshka Tolstoy is talented with his belly,” and these may be rude words, but they are completely accurate. This characterizes the writer realistic direction. All of Petersburg was alien to Alexei Tolstoy; he escaped from it. You say that he was received at Blok's house. Once we accept; for a while - yes. But Blok wrote in his notebook that he was invited to read another of Tolstoy’s plays - “I won’t go,” writes Blok. This is not accidental, and, of course, Tolstoy later made fun of him a lot in some characters. And when Blok died, then, as often happens, the acceptance of man and his whole world began, and it is known, from memoirs, that Tolstoy in the 40s, during the war, read a lot of Blok - all three volumes of his poems, and how I would let you into my heart again. Listener Alexander had one more question. Which of Tolstoy's contemporary writers was close to him?

Inna Andreeva: We need to think about this. Firstly, he loved Remizov, and this is understandable.

Ivan Tolstoy: But, again, that side of it, which was more deeply rooted in the soil, was rooted in the people, in folklore, which Alexey Tolstoy himself felt very well. But he also did not tolerate Remizov’s mysticism. That is, in Remizov he only accepted his part.

Inna Andreeva: Certainly. He liked Gumilev.

Ivan Tolstoy: For the lack of mysticism.

Inna Andreeva: Absolutely right. He especially liked his travel series.

Ivan Tolstoy: But didn’t he accept Bryusov only because he saw the rationalism of Bryusov’s literary game? When Bryusov pretends to be a symbolist and puts “fog” on himself, is this all a game of fog and a game of symbolism, a game of unclear, symbolistic worlds? After all, in fact, Bryusov was a super-realistic person and wrote his poems simply as he played chess games.

Inna Andreeva: Alexei Tolstoy understood this perfectly. He even sometimes compared him with his unloved - for the time being, though - Dostoevsky. Yes, I didn’t like Bryusov, although I respected and respected him as a professional.

Ivan Tolstoy: As far as I understand, he loved Bunin.

Inna Andreeva: Oh, how I forgot Ivan Alekseevich! He loved Bunin very much.

Ivan Tolstoy: Who, in turn, also could not stand the Symbolists! And, in my opinion, for the same thing.

Inna Andreeva: Certainly. And who, too, at the same time - say, until the 20s - had great respect for the work of Alexei Nikolaevich, especially his prose.

Ivan Tolstoy: As far as I understand, he loved Leskov and the realist writers of the 19th century; adored Chekhov; then, from the younger ones, Bulgakov. That is, the entire realistic line in literature.

Inna Andreeva: Yes, we are talking about modern writers. By the way, he absolutely couldn’t stand Leonid Andreev, which is completely understandable and explainable.

Georgy Georgievich(Saint Petersburg): I would like to look at the work of Alexei Tolstoy from a much broader perspective. As you know, in 1717 Lenin established the world's first totalitarian state. The second, as you know, is Mussolini, and the third is Adolf Hitler. So, wouldn’t it be right to consider the work of Tolstoy, who, as is known, glorified Ivan the Terrible during the years of Stalin - and the Stalin era represented tens of millions of people’s lives, wouldn’t it be right to consider his work from the point of view of adaptation to this totalitarian state , which brought so much trouble to the peoples of Russia. And consider in this way not only the work of Alexei Tolstoy, but also writers who worked for the needs of the totalitarian regime. As for Nikita’s Childhood, everyone wrote it - both Aksakov and Lev Nikolaevich, it’s too simple.

Inna Andreeva: I disagree with our listener. What are we going to say about Zoshchenko then? He wrote stories about Lenin. Bulgakov wrote "Batum". They all worked for the authorities. It is a well-known truth: “There is no prophet in his own country.” Let's say the novel "Peter the Great", a duology about Ivan the Terrible. Simply, knowing the work of the writer under discussion, if you trace him, then he began to write about Peter the Great even before the revolution. This topic always worried him, and Peter the Great was not written at all for the needs of the authorities.

And, in general, this can be approached from a completely different angle. It's like escapism. After all, look: Alexei Tolstoy did not write a single novel about the five-year plan, say, about the construction of a hydroelectric power station, about the White Sea Canal, about the decisions of party congresses. He has a continuous escape into the past.

Ivan Tolstoy: Well, not quite back in time. For example, the novel “Bread” is not quite the past, but just yesterday, and so yesterday that we didn’t have time to sleep before it was already today. I would still like to say that there is some truth in our listener’s position. Alexei Tolstoy was a writer who adapted to his time. I would not like to hide this at all, and I would not want our program to recast the figure of Alexei Tolstoy. He really adapted to power. He was a man who wrote many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of shameful pages, which I am sure in another era he would not have written, but he was, in his own way, forced to write them. He agreed to live in this era, to exist, to feed himself and his family. He was forced to write this, and this was his human weakness. He had a choice, like any person for whom there is honor, he chose exactly this path.

I believe that he is quite rightly criticized and should be morally condemned. The writer cannot be applauded for his novel “Bread.”

Another thing is that the whole story of his return from emigration to the USSR - then still Soviet Russia - was connected with his natural need, and here he followed exclusively the call of his heart and listened to his inner voice. This whole story is connected with the fact that he wanted to be a “whole person”, to remain one. In emigration, he felt out of place, felt without a reader, and saw how limited the audience abroad turned out to be. He saw how many emigrants struggled, like spiders in a jar. Of course, there were wonderful, worthy people there, but, nevertheless, he saw a limited field for his artistic activity. He wanted to be with his people. Is it possible to reproach a person for such a call of the heart? I wouldn't.

And so, he returned to Soviet Russia. He knew what he was getting into. While still in exile, he made this compromise. He agreed - he sold his soul to the devil. Maybe not all of it. He left some artistic piece for himself. That’s why he came up with such wonderful lyrical things, which he later wrote in the Soviet Union. The same, after all, "Pinocchio". But having already agreed to a deal with the devil once, he was forced to dance according to the rules that were given. He wanted to remain a whole person, to sleep peacefully; he believed that he would sleep peacefully if his soul did not split in two - if he wrote what he thought, thought what the era ordered him to think. Look, he didn’t write a single piece of work “on the table.” From almost every writer of the 20s and 30s, from the Stalin era, there remained works written for the table, that is, written for themselves, for the soul, for God. Alexei Tolstoy, apparently, did not have a God. He had no need to speak out, as in Last Judgment. He believed that he should write only what could be immediately published. Almost all of his works were published. There was nothing left, not a single line, except private letters.

But, of course, this man also had a civic position, and in those years when it was still “possible,” he defended someone and there is a whole series of evidence that some people were saved, others were returned to their professional activities, someone avoided arrest, someone improved their fate, and this will also be counted towards them at the Last Judgment.

During the war, Alexey Tolstoy joyfully surrendered to a patriotic position and wrote those works in which, of course, his clear, bold voice sounds; where there was no need to pretend, to listen to some circumstances. Inna Georgievna, I thank you for bringing a historical recording to our program - Alexei Tolstoy’s speech to military personnel in 1943 in Barvikha. Let's listen. Alexey Tolstoy says:

Alexey Tolstoy: We Russians are optimists. With every phenomenon we look for opportunities to turn it into human happiness. So it is in this cruel war. We stubbornly see the other shore - on the other side of victory; a shore where there will be rest and the beginning of great, won happiness. Nazism, as in an Arabian fairy tale, released a ferocious genie - the spirit of evil and vice - from an enchanted jug. But evil is a sign of imperfection and weakness, and you and I will drive the ferocious Nazi genie back into the jug and throw it into the abyss of timelessness. So let us be friends and good fighters for everything good and beautiful on earth!

Ivan Tolstoy: “Do you have books by Alexei Tolstoy at home?” Our correspondent in St. Petersburg, Alexander Dyadin, asked this question to passers-by. Let's listen to the answers.

Passerby: Yes, definitely. This is a school program, and I have children. We now have all the historical impressions of Peter from his novel and from the films made based on it.

Passerby: I don't know which ones, but they exist. Dad is interested in him.

Passerby: It's fantasy, I think, or something like that. I went through this at school.

Passerby: "Prince Silver", poetry. I really liked it at the time. I read this mostly when I was young. Then - to my son, he is a young man now, but he liked it. "Prince Silver" made a great impression on him.

Passerby: "Aelita", for example. When I read it, I think it was at school. Of course, his fiction was captivating.

Passerby: Yes, there is, but I can’t say for sure. This is rather a question for my parents. I remember it was on a separate shelf; I could tell it when I was a child.

Passerby: There are books. Four, I think. But now I don’t remember which ones.

Passerby: Eat. But I only remember “Aelita” - my grandfather forced me to read it. But I perceived it differently, because it was written about revolution and all that. I think it's outdated now. For general development and broadening your horizons, then yes. When they read a book, one sees one thing, another sees another, and the third sees nothing at all. For example, I would force my children to read.

Passerby: Alexey Tolstoy, who wrote “Peter the Great”, “Walking in Torment” - a wonderful novel. "Pinocchio", of course. A normal writer, although some believe that he wrote somewhat ideologically. “Walking Through Torment” is, after all, a novel that raised the Soviet regime: The most important thing is that it is easy to read. And sometimes, when you take Dickens in translation, it’s not readable.

Passerby: Eat. The last thing I read was "The Blob". It's very heartwarming. Not an educational text, but rather conveys emotions, the spirit of what he writes about. I think that it should be studied at school, that it is missed in vain. This is a classic, what can we say?

Passerby: There is, but to be honest, I don’t remember what. My parents have a library, but they read it all. I don’t even read such books - I would like something simpler.

Passerby: Of course I have. I don’t even remember, maybe some school works. I read it, but it's not particularly interesting. Everything is clear, of course, but not everything is interesting. Young people are different now.

Passerby: I don't remember. He probably made some contribution to literature, but in general I read the classics a little. Now, in my opinion, few people are interested in this.

Passerby: Of course, "Peter the Great". In my opinion, this is the first intelligent look at history. Well, in general, his historical and psychological description of any moments is brilliant. I think that he was in demand during his life, and will always be in demand.

Ivan Tolstoy: Last question to you, as the head of the museum. Who comes to the writer's museum?

Inna Andreeva: A lot of children come, students come, a lot of foreigners come. Again, I repeat, “there is no prophet in his own country.” For example, the Swedes and Japanese, we note, are very well versed in Tolstoy’s novel “Peter the Great”. They have a wild number of translations of this novel. Moreover, the translations are completely different, and by different translators. The Swedes, in general, are very fond of Alexei Tolstoy, especially Peter the Great, and, by the way, The Golden Key, oddly enough. Children come to see the real Pinocchio, to see how the writer lived. They come with pleasure. Young people, unfortunately, very often confuse him with Alexei Konstantinovich. They say they read “Prince Silver”, but not the rest. When you try to explain to them that these are completely different writers and tell them about the works of Alexei Nikolaevich, it turns out that they have not read anything. Adults really love “Walking Through Torment,” especially its first part. Many people come to Alexei Tolstoy in the museum, in his house, as the author of “Peter the Great,” and many claim that “The Golden Key” will last forever. Most, of course, come to the author of The Golden Key.

The curse that never happened.

The Church and Tolstoy: the history of relations

In the history of Russian literature, there is, perhaps, no topic more difficult and sad than the excommunication of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy from the Church. And at the same time, there is no topic that would give rise to so many rumors, conflicting opinions and outright lies.

The story of Tolstoy's excommunication is unique in its own way. None of the Russian writers comparable to him in terms of artistic talent were at enmity with Orthodoxy. Neither the youthful opposition of Pushkin, nor the gloomy Byronism and the absurd death in a duel of Lermontov forced the Church to stop considering them its children. Dostoevsky, who in his spiritual development went through the path from participation in an underground organization to a prophetic understanding of the future destinies of Russia; Gogol, with his "Selected Passages from Correspondence with Friends" and "Explanation of the Divine Liturgy"; Ostrovsky, who is rightly called the Russian Shakespeare, Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Aksakov, Leskov, Turgenev, Goncharov... In essence, all Russian classic literature XIX century created by Orthodox Christians.

Against this background, Leo Tolstoy’s conflict with the Russian Orthodox Church looks especially depressing. This is probably why any intelligent Russian person has been trying for more than a hundred years to find an explanation for the contradiction: how is it possible, the greatest of Russian writers, an unsurpassed master of words, possessed of amazing artistic intuition, an author who became a classic during his lifetime... And at the same time time is the only one of our writers excommunicated from the Church.

In general, it is common for Russian people to come to the defense of the persecuted and convicted. And it doesn’t matter what exactly they were convicted for, why or where they were being driven from. Perhaps the main feature of our national character is compassion. And in the eyes of most people, Tolstoy certainly looks like the injured party in the story of excommunication. His relationship with the Church is often perceived as an unequal battle between a lone hero and a state institution, a soulless bureaucratic machine.

Perhaps this point of view was most fully expressed by the wonderful writer Alexander Kuprin in his story “Anathema”. The plot of the story is simple: Protodeacon cathedral Father Olympius at a service is forced to proclaim anathema to his favorite writer Leo Tolstoy. Reading from the breviary of the 17th century monstrous curses, “which only the narrow mind of the monks of the first centuries of Christianity could have invented,” the protodeacon remembers the wonderful lines of Tolstoy, read the night before, and makes his choice - instead of “anathema,” he proclaims “many years to come” to Count Tolstoy.

The protodeacon can be understood. Here is a short excerpt from the story where the author describes the procedure for anathematizing Tolstoy:

“The archbishop was a great formalist, a pedant and a capricious person. He never allowed a single text to be omitted, either from the canon of the blessed father and shepherd Andrew of Crete, or from the funeral rite, or from other services. And Father Olympius, indifferently shaking the cathedral with his lion’s roar and forcing the glass on the chandeliers rang with a subtle rattling sound, cursed, anathematized and excommunicated: ... Mohammedans, Bogomils, Judaizers, cursed those who blaspheme the feast of the Annunciation, innkeepers, offending widows and orphans, Russian schismatics, rebels and traitors: Grishka Otrepiev, Timoshka Akundinov, Stenka Razin, Ivashka Mazepa, Emelka Pugachev, as well as all those who accept teachings contrary to the Orthodox faith..."

"... Although the spirit of the Lord is tempted according to Simon the Magus and according to Ananias and Sapphira, like a dog returning to his vomit, let his days be short and evil, and let his prayer become sin, and let the devil stand in his right hands and go out condemned, in one generation may his name perish, and may his memory be destroyed from the earth... And may a curse come, and anathema, not strictly and strictly, but with many lips... May he have the shaking of Cain, the leprosy of Gehazi, the strangulation of Judas, Simon the sorcerer's death, the Aryan tresio, Ananias and Sapphiri's sudden death... may he be excommunicated and anathematized and not forgiven after death, and may his body not crumble and may the earth not accept him, and may his part be in eternal hell and tormented day and night."

These are terrible words addressed to a great writer. But don’t rush to be horrified. The fact is that this whole nightmare, attributed by Kuprin to the “narrow mind of the monks of the first centuries of Christianity,” is from beginning to end his own invention. And it’s not even that the name of Emelyan Pugachev, who was born and lived in the eighteenth century, could not have appeared in the seventeenth-century missal. And it’s not that, starting from 1869, the anathematization of individuals in Russia was stopped altogether.

It’s just that in none of the numerous printed and handwritten rites of anathematization compiled by the Russian Orthodox Church over several centuries, there is anything even remotely similar to the curses that Kuprin spews out at Lev Nikolaevich on behalf of the Church. All these terrible spells are nothing more than a figment of the wild imagination of a de-churched Russian intellectual of the early twentieth century. In none of the churches of the Russian Empire was an anathema proclaimed against Tolstoy. Everything was much less solemn and more prosaic: the newspapers published the Message of the Holy Synod. Here is its full text:

by God's grace

The Holy All-Russian Synod, the faithful children of the Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian Church rejoice in the Lord.

We pray you, brothers, beware of those who create strife and strife, except for doctrine, which you will learn, and turn away from them (Rom. 16:17).

From the beginning, the Church of Christ suffered blasphemies and attacks from numerous heretics and false teachers who sought to overthrow it and shake its essential foundations, which were based on faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God. But all the forces of hell, according to the promise of the Lord, could not overcome the Holy Church, which will remain unconquered forever. And today, by God’s permission, a new false teacher, Count Leo Tolstoy, has appeared. Known to the world a writer, Russian by birth, Orthodox by baptism and upbringing, Count Tolstoy, in the seduction of his proud mind, boldly rebelled against the Lord and against His Christ and against His holy heritage, clearly before everyone renounced the mother who fed and raised him, the Orthodox Church, and devoted his literary activity and the talent given to him from God to the dissemination among the people of teachings contrary to Christ and the Church, and to the destruction in the minds and hearts of people of the fatherly faith, the Orthodox faith, which established the universe, by which our ancestors lived and were saved, and by which they have hitherto held on and Holy Rus' was strong. In his writings and letters, scattered in large numbers by him and his disciples all over the world, especially within our dear Fatherland, he preaches with the zeal of a fanatic the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith; rejects the personal Living God, glorified in the Holy Trinity, the creator and provider of the Universe, denies the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-man, Redeemer and Savior of the world, who suffered for us and for our salvation and rose from the dead, denies the divine conception of Christ the Lord after humanity and virginity before Nativity and after the Nativity of the Most Pure Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin Mary, does not recognize the afterlife and retribution, rejects all the sacraments of the Church and the grace-filled action of the Holy Spirit in them and, swearing at the most sacred objects of faith of the Orthodox people, did not shudder to mock the greatest of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. Count Tolstoy preaches all this continuously, in word and in writing, to the temptation and horror of the entire Orthodox world, and thus undisguisedly, but clearly before everyone, he consciously and intentionally rejected himself from all communication with the Orthodox Church. The previous attempts, to his understanding, were not crowned with success. Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and cannot consider him until he repents and restores his communion with her. Now we testify to this before the whole Church for the confirmation of those who are right and for the admonition of those who are in error, especially for the new admonition of Count Tolstoy himself. Many of his neighbors who keep the faith think with sorrow that he, at the end of his days, remains without faith in God and the Lord our Savior, having rejected the blessings and prayers of the Church and from all communication with her.

Therefore, testifying to his falling away from the Church, we pray together that the Lord will grant him repentance into the mind of truth (2 Tim. 2:25). We pray, merciful Lord, that you do not want the death of sinners, hear and have mercy and turn him to Your holy Church. Amen.

Originally signed:

Humble ANTONY, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga.

Humble THEOGNOST, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia.

Humble VLADIMIR, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna.

Humble JEROME, Archbishop of Kholm and Warsaw.

Humble JAKOV, Bishop of Chisinau and Khotyn.

Humble JACOB, Bishop.

Humble BORIS, Bishop.

Humble MARKEL, Bishop.

It is quite obvious that this document does not even contain a hint of any curse.

The Russian Orthodox Church simply bitterly stated the fact: the great Russian writer, Count Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy ceased to be a member of the Orthodox Church. And not at all by virtue of the determination made by the Synod. Everything happened much earlier. In response to the indignant letter from Lev Nikolaevich’s wife Sofia Andreevna Tolstoy, written by her regarding the publication of the Synod’s definition in newspapers, Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg wrote:

“Dear Empress Countess Sofia Andreevna! It’s not cruel what the Synod did when it announced your husband’s apostasy from the Church, but cruel what he did to himself by renouncing his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Redeemer and Savior. It is this renunciation that should have given vent to your sorrowful indignation long ago. And it is not because of a piece of printed paper that your husband is dying, of course, but because he has turned away from the Source of eternal life."

Compassion for the persecuted and sympathy for the offended are, of course, the noblest impulses of the soul. I certainly feel sorry for Lev Nikolaevich. But before you sympathize with Tolstoy, it is necessary to answer one very important question: how much did Tolstoy himself suffer over his excommunication from the Church? After all, you can only have compassion for someone who suffers. But did Tolstoy perceive the excommunication as some kind of tangible loss for himself? Now is the time to turn to his famous response to the definition of the Holy Synod, which was also published in all Russian newspapers. Here are some excerpts from this message:

"... The fact that I renounced the Church that calls itself Orthodox is completely fair.

And I became convinced that the teaching of the Church is theoretically an insidious and harmful lie, but in practice it is a collection of the grossest superstitions and witchcraft, completely hiding the entire meaning of Christian teaching.

I really renounced the Church, stopped performing its rituals and wrote in my will to my loved ones that when I die, they would not allow church ministers to see me and my dead body would be removed as quickly as possible, without any spells and prayers over it, as they remove any a nasty and unnecessary thing so that it does not disturb the living.

The fact that I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable of the fall of the first man, the story of God born of the Virgin redeeming the human race, is absolutely fair

It is also said: “Does not recognize the afterlife and retribution.” If they understand the afterlife in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment/devils and heaven - constant bliss - it is absolutely fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife...

It is also said that I reject all sacraments... This is absolutely fair, since I consider all sacraments to be base, rude, witchcraft inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel..."

Enough to make it clear: on the merits of the matter, Lev Nikolaevich had no complaints about the Synod’s definition. There were complaints about the formal side. Tolstoy doubted the canonicity of this definition from the point of view of church law. Simply put, Lev Nikolaevich was hurt precisely by the fact that his excommunication was not loudly announced from all departments of the Russian Orthodox Church. That is, he regretted that the procedure that Kuprin described in his story did not take place. His attitude towards the Definition is shown by an incident told by Tolstoy’s secretary, V.F. Bulgakov:

“Lev Nikolaevich, who entered the Remington store, began looking through the brochure lying on the table, his “Response to the Synod.” When I returned, he asked:

What, they proclaimed anathema to me?

It seems not.

Why not? It was necessary to proclaim... After all, as if this was necessary?

It is possible that they proclaimed it. Don't know. Did you feel it, Lev Nikolaevich?

“No,” he answered and laughed.

Without going into details and assessing the religious views of Leo Tolstoy, one can, however, clearly see that these views did not coincide with the Orthodox faith. From the Church he received only confirmation of this difference. This comparison suggests itself: the man left his family for many years. Lives with another woman. And so, when the first wife filed for divorce and received it, this man begins to be indignant at the legal flaws in the divorce procedure. From a human perspective, everything is understandable - which does not happen in life... But to sympathize with such a person is, to say the least, strange.

Tolstoy did not suffer from formal excommunication. Until his death, he was not completely sure of the correctness of his chosen path of confrontation with the Church. Hence his trips to Optina Monastery, his desire to settle in a monastery, and his request to send the Optina elder Joseph to him, who was dying at the Astapovo station (he was ill, and another elder, Barsanuphius, was sent to Astapovo). And in this duality of his, Lev Nikolaevich is truly deeply unhappy and deserves the most sincere sympathy. But there are situations in a person’s life when no one in the world can help him except himself. Tolstoy was never able to get out of the noose that he had been diligently tightening on himself all his life.

Alexander TKACHENKO

Definition of the Holy Synod on Count Leo Tolstoy[edit]Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is included in the thematic block
Tolstoyism

Russian Companions
P. Biryukov · Bodyansky · V. Bulgakov · Gorbunov-Posadov · Gusev · Nazhivin · P. Nikolaev · Sulerzhitsky · Tregubov · Khilkov · Khiryakov · Chertkov
Foreign followers
Arishima · Gandhi · Järnefelt · Crosby · Konishi · Maud · Tokutomi
Bibliography
Resurrection · Confession · What is my faith · The Kingdom of God is within you
Miscellaneous
Green stick · Definition of the Synod · Doukhobors · Tolstoyan peasants
Template: View Discussion Edit
The definition and message of the Holy Governing Synod about Count Leo Tolstoy dated February 20 - 22 (Old Art.), 1901 - a resolution (judgment) of the Holy Governing Synod, which officially announced that Count Leo Tolstoy is no longer a member of the Orthodox Church, since his (publicly expressed) beliefs are incompatible with such membership.

[edit] Background
Illustration for L. N. Tolstoy’s essay “Where there is love, there is God” (1887) In the last two decades of L. N. Tolstoy’s life, being a believer, baptized in Orthodoxy, in a number of works, especially in the novel “Resurrection” (1899 ) clearly showed that he does not accept a number of the most important dogmas of the Orthodox Church. He also distributed brochures describing his own understanding of Christianity, which was far from Orthodox (see article Tolstoy).

Tolstoy rejected the doctrine of the Trinity of God, the infallible authority of the Ecumenical Councils, church sacraments, the virgin birth, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his divinity. At the same time, he sharply criticized the Church for the fact that, in his opinion, it places its interests higher than the original Christian ideals. In the novel “Resurrection,” the clergy was depicted mechanically and hastily performing rituals, and in the image of the cold and cynical Toporov, some began to recognize K. P. Pobedonostsev, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Although censorship did not allow such views into the open press, they continued to spread and became widely known.

A number of church hierarchs, since the late 1880s, appealed to the Synod and Emperor Alexander III with a call to punish Leo Tolstoy and excommunicate him from the Church, but the emperor replied that “he did not want to add a martyr’s crown to Tolstoy’s glory.” After the death of Alexander III (1894), Nicholas II began to receive similar calls. Saint Theophan the Recluse sharply condemned the views and preaching of the count.

The publisher and editor of the church magazine “Missionary Review” V. M. Skvortsov raised the issue of “Tolstoyism” at the 3rd All-Russian Missionary Congress in 1897 in Kazan. Skvortsov wrote: “According to the study of heretical wisdom, gr. Tolstoy, scattered throughout many of his religious treatises<…>, the congress of missionary specialists already recognized the Tolstoyan religious movement as an established religious-social sect, extremely harmful not only in church, but also in political terms. »

When the count became seriously ill in the winter of 1899, the Holy Synod issued a secret circular, which admitted that he had decisively fallen out of communion with the Church and, according to church canons, cannot be buried according to the Orthodox rite in the event of death, unless before death he restores communion with her through the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist.

The summary (“extract”) of the Chief Prosecutor’s report for 1901, published in 1905, stated: “<…>The fanaticism of the Tolstoyans, their open mockery of Orthodoxy, their impudent blasphemy of holy things, their insult to the religious feelings of the Orthodox, are reported by the bishops of all dioceses infected with Tolstoyanism. This sect demands unremitting vigilance from both the pastors of the church and the civil authorities, especially since its views have recently begun to become not only the property of the Orthodox masses, but also to subjugate the followers of all other sectarian false teachings. »

By the beginning of the 20th century, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev, who had previously considered excommunication necessary, became an opponent of such a step, believing that in the emerging internal political situation such an act would be perceived as a government demonstration, and not as a measure of church influence long awaited by believers.

Metropolitan Anthony The initiator in this case was St. Petersburg Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), who on February 11, 1901 sent a letter to the Chief Prosecutor (who was not a member of the Synod) in which he stated: “Now in the Synod everyone has come to the idea of ​​​​the need to publish Church Gazette" synodal judgment on Count Tolstoy." Pobedonostsev did not create obstacles and himself wrote the initial text of the Synodal Definition; In order to soften the tone of the Definition and so that it would have the character of evidence of Tolstoy’s independent fall from the Church, changes were made to its text by Metropolitan Anthony and other members of the Synod during a meeting on February 20 - 22 (O.S.), 1901.

Like all decisions of the Synod, the decision on Tolstoy was previously reported to the emperor by the chief prosecutor; From Pobedonostsev’s letter dated February 25 (Sunday), 1901, published after the revolution, to Emperor Nicholas II, it is clear that after the publication (on that day) of the synodal resolution, Pobedonostsev received a reprimand from the tsar, and therefore asked him for forgiveness in a letter for “not asking for Your Majesty’s consent to the very wording of the synod’s message.” Pobedonostsev further wrote in a letter to Nicholas II: “But that this action of the synod took place without the knowledge of Your Majesty, I dare to appeal to the memory of Your Majesty. This is the main reason why I asked permission to appear before Your Majesty last Friday, in order to report on this assumption of the synod and explain it. I reported that the synod was forced to do this by the turmoil occurring among the people and by numerous requests for the highest church authorities to have their say; that the message is written in a gentle and conciliatory spirit, about which care is taken.<…>».

[edit] Definition of the Synod
Definition of the Synod in "Church News" (beginning) On February 24, 1901, in the official organ of the Holy Governing Synod - the magazine "Church News" - a Definition was published with the Message of the Holy Synod No. 557 of February 20 - 22 of the same year about the fall of Count Leo Tolstoy from Churches. The next day it was published in all major newspapers in Russia.

The definition of the Synod read: “The Holy Synod, in its concern for the children of the Orthodox Church, for their protection from destructive temptation and for the salvation of the erring, having a judgment about Count Leo Tolstoy and his anti-Christian and anti-Church false teaching, recognized it as timely, in order to prevent a violation of the peace of the church, to make public, through publication in the Church Gazette, the following message:<…>" The message was prefaced by a quotation from Paul's letter to the Romans: “I pray you, brethren, beware of those who create strife and strife, except for the teaching that you have learned, and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17); further it read:

From the beginning, the Church of Christ suffered blasphemies and attacks from numerous heretics and false teachers who sought to overthrow it and shake its essential foundations, which were based on faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God. But all the forces of hell, according to the promise of the Lord, could not overcome the Holy Church, which will remain unconquered forever. And today, by God’s permission, a new false teacher, Count Leo Tolstoy, has appeared. A world-famous writer, Russian by birth, Orthodox by baptism and upbringing, Count Tolstoy, in the seduction of his proud mind, boldly rebelled against the Lord and against His Christ and against His holy property, clearly before everyone renounced the Mother who fed and raised him, the Church. Orthodox, and devoted his literary activity and the talent given to him from God to the dissemination among the people of teachings contrary to Christ and the Church, and to the destruction in the minds and hearts of people of the fatherly faith, the Orthodox faith, which established the universe, by which our ancestors lived and were saved, and by which Until now, Holy Rus' had held out and was strong.

In his writings and letters, scattered in large numbers by him and his disciples all over the world, especially within our dear Fatherland, he preaches, with the zeal of a fanatic, the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith; denies the personal living God, glorified in the Holy Trinity, the Creator and Provider of the universe, denies the Lord Jesus Christ - the God-man, Redeemer and Savior of the world, who suffered for us for the sake of men and ours for the sake of salvation and rose from the dead, denies the seedless conception of Christ the Lord for humanity and virginity until Nativity and after the Nativity of the Most Pure Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary, does not recognize the afterlife and retribution, rejects all the sacraments of the Church and the grace-filled action of the Holy Spirit in them and, scolding the most sacred objects of faith of the Orthodox people, did not shudder to mock the greatest of the sacraments, the Holy Eucharist. Count Tolstoy preaches all this continuously, in word and in writing, to the temptation and horror of the entire Orthodox world, and thus undisguisedly, but clearly before everyone, he consciously and intentionally rejected himself from all communication with the Orthodox Church.

The previous attempts, to his understanding, were not crowned with success. Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and cannot consider him until he repents and restores his communion with her. Now we testify to this before the whole Church for the strengthening of the righteous and for the admonition of the erring, especially for the new admonition of Count Tolstoy himself. Many of his neighbors who keep the faith think with sorrow that at the end of his days he remains without faith in God and the Lord our Savior, having rejected the blessings and prayers of the Church and all communication with her.

Therefore, testifying to his falling away from the Church, we pray together that the Lord will grant him repentance into the mind of truth (2 Tim. 2:25). We pray, merciful Lord, do not want the death of sinners, hear and have mercy and turn him to Your holy Church. Amen.

The definition was signed by Metropolitan Anthony and six other senior hierarchs. In a private letter, Anthony stated the reasons for the publication as follows:

I do not agree with you that the synodal act on Tolstoy could serve to destroy the Church. On the contrary, I think that he will serve to strengthen it... We started an underground polemic with the Tolstoyans. They hit us with satires and fables, and we also have our own satirists, although not entirely successful ones. We are not prepared to fight in this field. War will create or call forth talent. The initial tragedy has been replaced, perhaps, by comedy, and victory will still be on the side of the church.

[edit] Public reaction Public responses to the Definition of the Synod were varied. Many of the letters Tolstoy received contained curses, exhortations, calls to repent and reconcile with the church, and even threats.

"Leo Tolstoy in Hell." A fragment of a wall painting from a church in the village of Tazova, Kursk province. 1883. Tolstoy was especially harshly criticized by the famous Archpriest John of Kronstadt (1902):

Tolstoy’s hand rose to write such a vile slander against Russia, against its government!.. A daring, notorious atheist, like Judas the traitor... Tolstoy perverted his moral personality to the point of ugliness, to the point of disgust... Tolstoy’s bad manners from his youth and his absent-minded, idle life with adventures the summers of his youth, as can be seen from his own description of his life, were main reason his radical godlessness; acquaintance with Western atheists helped him even more to take this terrible path, and his excommunication from the Church Holy Synod embittered him to the extreme, offending his count's literary pride, darkening his worldly glory... oh, how terrible you are, Leo Tolstoy, spawn of vipers...

Also on July 14, 1908, on the eve of Tolstoy’s 80th birthday, the Moscow newspaper “News of the Day” published a prayer, according to the editors, composed by John of Kronstadt:

Lord, pacify Russia for the sake of Your Church, for the sake of Your poor people, stop the rebellion and revolution, take from the earth Your blasphemer, the most evil and unrepentant Leo Tolstoy and all his ardent followers... .

M. A. Sopotsko, a member of the Black Hundred “Union of the Russian People” wrote in the “Tula Diocesan Gazette”:

A remarkable phenomenon with a portrait of Count L.N. Tolstoy.
Many people, including those writing these lines, noticed an amazing phenomenon with the portrait of L.N. Tolstoy. After Tolstoy was excommunicated from the church by the decree of the divinely established authorities, the expression on Count Tolstoy’s face took on a purely satanic appearance: it became not only angry, but fierce and gloomy...

The impression one gets from the portrait of gr. Tolstoy, can only be explained by the presence of his portraits evil spirits(demons and their leader the devil), whom the three-cursed count zealously served to the detriment of humanity.

The well-known Orthodox philosopher V.V. Rozanov, without challenging the Synod's Definition on the merits, stated that the Synod, as a body more bureaucratic than religious, does not have the right to judge Tolstoy:

Tolstoy, with the full presence of his terrible and criminal delusions, mistakes and impudent words, is a huge religious phenomenon, perhaps the greatest phenomenon of religious Russian history in 19 centuries, although distorted. But an oak tree that has grown crookedly is, however, an oak tree, and it is not for a mechanically formal “institution” to judge it... This act shook the Russian faith more than the teachings of Tolstoy.

At the same time, letters and telegrams expressing sympathy were continuously sent to Tolstoy.

For three days in a row they gave Lev Nikolayevich a standing ovation, brought baskets of fresh flowers, sent telegrams, letters, addresses... Some kind of festive mood continued in our house for several days; there are whole crowds of visitors from morning to evening.

Even on April 8, Leo Tolstoy’s diary states: “Addresses and greetings continue.” Demonstrations were held in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv and other cities expressing solidarity with the writer. The workers of the Maltsev glass factories presented Tolstoy with a large block of glass with the following inscription in gold letters:

You shared the fate of many great people who are ahead of their century, deeply respected Lev Nikolaevich! And before they were burned at the stake, rotting in prisons and exiles. Let them excommunicate you, as the Pharisees “high priests” want. Russian people will always be proud, considering you great, dear, beloved.

Legal Adviser to His Majesty's Cabinet N. A. Lebedev wrote:

I just read the decree of the Synod on Tolstoy. What nonsense. What a satisfaction of personal vengeance. After all, it is clear that this is the work of Pobedonostsev and that he is taking revenge on Tolstoy... Now what? Maybe tens of thousands read Tolstoy’s banned works in Russia, and now hundreds of thousands will read them... After his death, Tolstoy will be buried as a martyr for his idea. They will go to his grave to worship... What saddens me is the lack of the spirit of love and application of the truths of Christianity in the bishops... They dress up in rich clothes, get drunk and overeat, make money by being monks, forget about the poor and needy... They moved away from the people, built palaces, forgot the cells in which Anthony and Theodosius lived... they serve as a temptation with their debauchery... “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but they made it a den of robbers... All this is bitter and regrettable...

Pobedonostsev, in a letter to the editor-in-chief of the Church Gazette, Archpriest I. A. Smirnov (March 22, 1901), noted: “What a cloud of bitterness has risen for the Epistle!...” In the police archives, references were found to the fable “Donkeys and the Lion” (magazine “Free Thought”), a student drawing “How Mice Buried a Cat,” copies of many illuminated letters with harsh remarks about the Definition of the Synod. The poet N. N. Ventzel wrote the fable “The Victorious Pigeons,” which was widely distributed throughout Russia (it is known that in 1903 a copy of the fable was confiscated during a search of A. P. Chekhov).

In Paris, a journalistic collection “The Pen” (La Plume) was published in support of Tolstoy, in which Zola, Maeterlinck and many other famous writers declared their solidarity.

In April, Leo Tolstoy sent an open letter to several newspapers:

Not being able to personally thank all those persons, from dignitaries to ordinary workers, who expressed to me both personally and by mail and telegraph their sympathy regarding the resolution of the Holy Synod of February 20-22, I humbly ask your respected newspaper to thank all these persons , and I attribute the sympathy expressed to me not so much to the significance of my activity as to the wit and timing of the resolution of the Holy Synod.

This letter, however, was immediately banned from publication.

[edit] Letter from Sofya Andreevna On February 26, 1901, Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya sent a letter to the first member of the Synod, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg, regarding the publication of the Definition of the Synod in newspapers:

Your Eminence!

Having read (yesterday) in the newspapers the cruel ruling of the Synod on the excommunication of my husband, Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, and seeing your signature among the signatures of the church pastors, I could not remain completely indifferent to this. There are no limits to my bitter indignation. And not from the point of view that my husband will die spiritually from this paper: this is not the work of people, but the work of God. The life of the human soul, from a religious point of view, is unknown to anyone except God and, fortunately, not subject to control. But from the point of view of the Church to which I belong and from which I will never retreat - which was created by Christ to bless in the name of God all the most significant moments of human life: births, marriages, deaths, human sorrows and joys ... - which must loudly proclaim the law of love , forgiveness, love for enemies, for those who hate us, to pray for everyone - from this point of view, the order of the Synod is incomprehensible to me.

It will not cause sympathy (except perhaps from Moskovskie Vedomosti), but indignation among people and great love and sympathy for Lev Nikolaevich. We are already receiving such statements, and there will be no end to them, from all over the world.

I cannot help but mention the grief I experienced from the nonsense that I had heard about before, namely: about the secret order of the Synod for priests not to perform a funeral service in the church of Lev Nikolaevich in the event of his death.

Who do they want to punish? - a deceased person who no longer feels anything, or the people around him, believers and people close to him? If this is a threat, then to whom and to what?

Is it really possible that in order to perform the funeral service for my husband and pray for him in church, I won’t find either a decent priest who will not be afraid of people before the real God of love, or an dishonest one whom I will bribe with a lot of money for this purpose? But I don't need that. For me, the church is an abstract concept, and I recognize as its ministers only those who truly understand the meaning of the church.

If we recognize as the church people who, with their malice, dare to violate the highest law of love of Christ, then all of us, true believers and churchgoers, would have left it long ago.

And those who are guilty of sinful deviations from the church are not those who are lost and seek the truth, but those who proudly recognized themselves as the head of it, and, instead of love, humility and forgiveness, became the spiritual executioners of those whom God would most likely forgive for their humble, complete renunciation. earthly blessings, love and help to people, life, although outside the church, than those who wear diamond miters and stars, but punish and excommunicate from the church - its shepherds.

It’s easy to refute my words with hypocritical arguments. But a deep understanding of the truth and the real intentions of people will not deceive anyone.

Countess Sofia Tolstaya.

The Countess's letter caused a great public outcry and was reprinted in many Russian and foreign newspapers. In her diary, Sofya Andreevna noted, not without pride: “No manuscript by L.N. had such a rapid and widespread distribution as this letter of mine.” Metropolitan Anthony soon wrote her a response; both texts were published on March 24, 1901 in the Church Gazette:

Dear Madam, Countess Sofia Andreevna!

It is not cruel what the Synod did by announcing your husband’s fall from the Church, but cruel what he did to himself by renouncing his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Redeemer and Savior. It is this renunciation that should have given vent to your woeful indignation long ago. And it is not, of course, because of a piece of printed paper that your husband dies, but because he has turned away from the Source of eternal life.

For a Christian, life is inconceivable without Christ, according to Whose words “he who believes in Him has eternal life, and passes from death to life, but he who does not believe will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him” (John III, 1. 16.36U, 24) , and therefore only one thing can be said about someone who renounces Christ is that he has passed from life to death. This is the death of your husband, but only he himself is to blame for this death, and not anyone else.

The Church to which you consider yourself to belong consists of believers in Christ, and - for believers, for its members, this Church blesses in the name of God all the most significant moments of human life: births, marriages, deaths, human sorrows and joys, but it never does this and cannot do it for unbelievers, for pagans, for those who blaspheme the name of God, for those who have renounced it and do not want to receive prayers or blessings from it, and in general for all those who are not members of it. And therefore, from the point of view of this Church, the order of the Synod is understandable, understandable and clear as God's day. And the law of love and forgiveness is not violated in the least. God's love is infinite, but She does not forgive everyone and not for everything. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not forgiven either in this life or in the future (Matt. XII: 32). The Lord always looks for a person with his love, but sometimes a person does not want to meet this love halfway and runs away from the Face of God, and therefore perishes. Christ prayed on the cross for His enemies, but in His high priestly prayer He also uttered a word bitter for His love, that the perishing son perished (John, XVII, 12). About your husband, while he is alive, it cannot yet be said that he is dead, but the absolute truth is said about him that he fell away from the Church and is not a member of it until he repents and reunites with it.

In its message, speaking about this, the Synod testified only to an existing fact, and therefore only those who do not understand what they are doing can be indignant at it. You receive expressions of sympathy from all over the world. I’m not surprised by this, but I think that you have nothing to console yourself with here. There is the glory of man and there is the glory of God. “The glory of man is like the flower of the grass: the grass is withered, and its flower is fallen, but the word of the Lord endures forever” (I Peter 1:24, 25).

When last year the newspapers spread the news of the count’s illness, the question arose for the clergy: should he, who had fallen away from the faith and the Church, be honored with a Christian burial and prayers? Appeals to the Synod followed, and he secretly gave guidance to the clergy and could give only one answer: it should not be done if he dies without restoring his communion with the Church. There is no threat to anyone here, and there could be no other answer. And I don’t think that there was any priest, not even a decent one, who would dare to perform a Christian burial over the count, and if he did, such a burial over an unbeliever would be a criminal profanation of the sacred rite. And why commit violence against your husband? After all, without a doubt, he himself does not want a Christian burial to be performed over him? Since you - a living person - want to consider yourself a member of the Church, and it really is a union of living rational beings in the name of the living God, then your statement that the Church for you is an abstract concept falls by itself. And in vain do you reproach the ministers of the Church for malice and violation of the highest law of love commanded by Christ. There is no violation of this law in the synodal act. This, on the contrary, is an act of love, an act of calling your husband to return to the Church and believers to pray for him.

The Lord appoints the shepherds of the Church, and not they themselves, as you say, proudly recognized themselves at its head. They wear diamond miters and stars, but this is not at all significant in their service. They remained shepherds, dressing in rags, persecuted and persecuted, and will always remain so, even if they had to dress in rags again, no matter how they were blasphemed and no matter what contemptuous words they called them.

In conclusion, I apologize for not answering you right away. I waited for the first sharp outburst of your grief to pass.

God bless you and keep you, and have mercy on the count - your husband!

Sofia Andreevna’s diary dated March 27 contains her impression of the Metropolitan’s answer: “He didn’t touch me at all. Everything is correct and everything is soulless. »

[edit] Leo Tolstoy's answer
I. Ya. Repin. Leo Tolstoy in 1901 In April 1901, L.N. Tolstoy responded to the Determination of the Synod, see the full text of the letter. At the beginning of this letter he criticizes the ruling:

At first I did not want to respond to the resolution of the Synod about me, but this resolution caused a lot of letters in which correspondents unknown to me - some scold me for rejecting what I do not reject, others exhorting me to believe in what I did not cease to believe, others express with me like-mindedness, which hardly exists in reality, and sympathy, to which I hardly have the right; and I decided to respond to the resolution itself, pointing out what was unfair in it, and to the appeals to me from my unknown correspondents. The resolution of the Synod in general has many shortcomings: it is illegal or deliberately ambiguous, it is arbitrary, unfounded, untruthful and, in addition, contains slander and incitement to bad feelings and actions.

It is illegal or deliberately ambiguous - because if it wants to be excommunication, then it does not satisfy the church rules by which such excommunication can be pronounced; if this is a statement that anyone who does not believe in the church and its dogmas does not belong to it, then this goes without saying and such a statement cannot have any other purpose than that, without being in essence excommunication, it would seem to be such, which is what actually happened, because that is how it was understood.<…>It is, finally, an incitement to bad feelings and actions, since it caused, as it should have been expected, in people who are unenlightened and unreasoning, bitterness and hatred towards me, reaching the point of threats of murder and expressed in the letters I receive.<…>So the resolution of the Synod is generally very bad. The fact that at the end of the decree it is said that the signatories are so sure of their rightness that they pray that God will make me for my good the same as they are, does not make it better.

The fact that I renounced the church that calls itself Orthodox is completely fair. But I renounced it not because I rebelled against the Lord, but on the contrary, only because I wanted to serve Him with all the strength of my soul. Before renouncing the church and unity with the people, which was inexpressibly dear to me, I, having some signs of doubting the correctness of the Church, devoted several years to theoretically and practically studying the teachings of the church: theoretically, I re-read everything I could about the teachings of the Church, studied and critically examined dogmatic theology; in practice, he strictly followed, for more than a year, all the instructions of the Church, observing all fasts and attending all church services. And I became convinced that the teaching of the Church is theoretically an insidious and harmful lie, but in practice it is a collection of the grossest superstitions and witchcraft, completely hiding the entire meaning of Christian teaching.<…>

The fact that I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable about the fall of the first man, which has no meaning in our time, the blasphemous story about God born of the Virgin, redeeming the human race, is absolutely fair. I not only do not reject God - the spirit, God - love, the one God - the beginning of everything, but I do not recognize anything as truly existing except God, and I see the whole meaning of life only in the fulfillment of the will of God, expressed in Christian teaching.

It is also said: “Does not recognize the afterlife and retribution.” If we understand the afterlife in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment, devils, and heaven - constant bliss, then it is absolutely fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife; but eternal life and retribution here and everywhere, now and always, I recognize to such an extent that, standing at my age on the edge of the grave, I often have to make an effort not to desire carnal death, that is, birth to a new life, and I believe that every good deed increases the true good of my eternal life, and every evil deed reduces it.

It is also said that I reject all sacraments. This is completely fair. I consider all sacraments to be base, rude, witchcraft inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel. In infant baptism I see a clear distortion of the entire meaning that baptism could have for adults who consciously accept Christianity; in performing the sacrament of marriage over people who had obviously been united before, and in allowing divorces and in sanctifying the marriages of divorced people, I see a direct violation of both the meaning and the letter of the Gospel teaching. In the periodic forgiveness of sins in confession, I see a harmful deception that only encourages immorality and destroys the fear of sin. In the consecration of oil, just as in the anointing, I see methods of crude witchcraft, as in the veneration of icons and relics, as in all those rituals, prayers, and spells with which the missal is filled. In communion I see the deification of the flesh and a perversion of Christian teaching. In the priesthood, in addition to obvious preparation for deception, I see a direct violation of the words of Christ, who directly forbids calling anyone teachers, fathers, mentors (Matt. 23: 8-10).

Finally, it was said, as the last and highest degree of my guilt, that I, “while scolding the most sacred objects of faith, did not shudder to mock the most sacred of sacraments - the Eucharist.” The fact that I did not shudder to describe simply and objectively what the priest does to prepare this so-called sacrament is completely fair; but the fact that this so-called sacrament is something sacred and that to describe it simply as it is done is blasphemy is completely unfair. The blasphemy is not in calling a partition a partition and not an iconostasis, and a cup a cup and not a chalice, etc., but the most terrible, never-ending, outrageous blasphemy is that people, using all possible means of deception and hypnotization - they assure children and simple-minded people that if you cut pieces of bread in a certain way and while pronouncing certain words and put them in wine, then God enters these pieces; and that the one in whose name a living piece is taken out will be healthy; In the name of whomever has died such a piece is taken out, it will be better for him in the next world; and that whoever ate this piece, God Himself will enter into him.