Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T08:38:56.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leskov and Ioann of Kronstadt: on the Origins of Polunoščniki

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Hugh McLean
Hugh McLean*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sometime in the late 1880's or early 1890's the following conversation took place between Emperor Alexander III and Countess Aleksandra Andreevna Tolstaja, the correspondent, confidante, and cousin of her illustrious namesake, Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj:

The Emperor. Tell me who you think are the most remarkable and popular persons in Russia. I know how honest you are and I am sure you will tell me the truth. Of course you mustn't think of including me in the list.

Countess Tolstaja (smiling). I won't include you.

The Emperor. But just whom will you include? That's what interests me.

Countess Tolstaja. First of all, Lev Tolstoj.

The Emperor. I expected that. Who else?

Countess Tolstaja (thinking). I'll name you one more person.

The Emperor (impatiently). But who is it? Who is it?

Countess Tolstaja. Father Ioann of Kronstadt.

The Emperor (laughs). I had forgotten about him. But I agree with you.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1953 , pp. 93 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1953

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Ivan Zakharin-Jakunin, “Grafinja A. A. Tolstaja. Ličnye vpečatlenija i vospominanija,” Vestnik Evropy, No. 4 (April, 1905), p. 617; also “Vospominanija grafini A. A. Tolstoj,” Perepiska L. N. Tolstogo s gr. A. A. Tolstoj (St. Petersburg, 1911), p. 57.

2 Letter to Lidija Ivanovna Veselitskaja-BoŹidarovič (V. Mikulič), June 1, 1893, Literaturnaja my si': Al'manakh, No. 3 (Leningrad, 1925), p. 273.Google Scholar

3 Faresov, A. I., Froth tečenij— Leskov, N. S.: Ego Źizn, sočinenija, polemika i vospominanija o nem (St. Petersburg, 1904), p. 307.Google Scholar

4 Veselitskaja, , op. cit., p. 297.Google Scholar

5 A really satisfactory analysis of this relationship is yet to be written. Cf. N. K. Gudzij, “Tolstoj i Leskov,” Iskusstvo, Books I—II, 1928; P. A. Sergeenko, Tolstoj i ego sovremenniki: Ocerki (Moscow, 1911); N. N. Apostolov, Lev Tolstoj i ego sputniki (Moscow, 1928).

6 Letter of November 4, 1887. Quoted in Fis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu. fubilejnyj sbornik (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), p. 60.Google Scholar

7 Letter of August 28, 1894, ibid., p. 177. Leskov uses the word lulčinka, designating the mode of illumination in the very poorest peasant huts—a burning stick simply stuck in the wall.

8 The reservation should perhaps be made that Leskov never became a “Tolstoyan” in the strict sense of that term. He could not follow Tolstoj in his general negation of science and culture nor in his Rousseauistic “simplification” of life, and he remained extremely critical of the sectarian antics of Tolstoj's disciples. Lidija Veselitskaja, herself not a wholehearted Tolstoyan, was shocked -ax the caricatured vignette biographies of Tolstoyans she heard from Leskov. Cf. V. Mikulič (L. I. Veselitskaja), “Teni prošlogo,” IstorčeSeskij vestnik, No. 2 ﹛February, 1913), p. 364; Faresov, , op. cit., pp. 315 ff.Google Scholar

9 On Sergiev, see Otec loann Kronštadtskij (otkliki pečati po povodu ego končiny) (Sergiev Posad, 1910); G. P. Fedotov, A Treasury of Russian Spirituality (New York, 1948), pp. 346–416; Ènciklopedičeskij slovar’ (Brokgaus-ftfron, St. Petersburg, 1900), XXIX, 647 Google Scholar; Ènciklopediceskij slovar’ (Granat, Moscow, n.d.), XXXVII, 614–16.Google Scholar His spiritual autobiography, Moja iizn’ vo Khriste, has been translated into English: My Life in Christ, E. E. Goulaeff, tr. (London, 1897).

10 Obličenie lŹeučenija grafa L'va Tolstogo: Apologetiieskij listok, reprinted as a supplement to Prikhodskaja Źzri (1912).

11 A. Cernovskij, compiler, and V. P. Viktorov, ed., Sojuz russkogo naroda po materialam črezvyčajnoj sledstvennoj komissii vremennogo pravitel'stva 1917 g. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1929), p. 36.

12 Henry W. Nevinson, The Dawn in Russia, or Scenes in the Russian Revolution (London and New York, 1906), p. 253.

13 Letter of January 12, 1891, Pis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu, p. 88. The hospital referred to was in the same building in Petersburg, Furštadtskaja 50, where Leskov lived. V. Ja. Mikhajlovskij was a priest at the Church of the Ascension in Petersburg and author of a book entitled Drunkenness and Its Cure!

14 Ibid., pp. 84-85.

15 E.g., Golovin, K. F., Russkij roman i russkoe obščestvo (St. Petersburg, 1897), p. 380 Google Scholar.

16 Letter to L. I. Veselitskaja, January 27, 1893, in Veselitskaja, op. cit., p. 268. The “righteous man who was hanged” is of course a reference to Christ; it was fashionable among Tolstoyans to avoid the term “crucified,” probably because of its ecclesiastical associations. Tolstoj himself usually said “executed” (kaznen). Actually this is a carry-over from a literary device of Tolstoj's, the famous “estrangement” (ostranenie). “Varnavka's bones“—a reference to Varnava Prepotenskij, a “nihilist” in Soborjane who frightens the village with a skeleton he has acquired for anatomical studies.

17 Šestidesjatye gody: Materialy po istorii literatury i obščestvennomu dviŹeniju, N. K. Piksanov and O. V. Cekhnovicer, eds. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1940), p. 356. Oral statement by Koni to Solomon Rejser (Reisser) in 1927.

18 There has been quite a battle of footnotes over the exact circumstances of Leskov's reconciliation with Stasjulevič. In his study on Leskov, P. V. Kovalewsky, quoting some unpublished memoirs of Koni's, had stated that Polunoščniki was taken to Stasiulevič by Koni. Pierre Kovalewsky, N. S. Leskov: Peintre meconnu de la vie nattonale russe (Paris, 1925), p. 82. For this S. P. Šesterikov, in his notes to Leskov's correspondence with Tolstoj, takes Kovalewsky severely to task, citing Leskov's letter of January 20, 1891: “Yesterday Vladimir Solov'ëv took away my story: he is set on ‘making a match’ between me and Vestnik Evropy, and Stasjulevič supposedly desires it too. For my part, I have nothing against it, and I submit to Solov'ëv,” Pis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu, p. 91. Šesterikov's strictures are repeated almost word for word by Solomon Rejser in his note to Leskov's letter to Stasjulevic of December 11, 1891; see Šestidesjatye gody … , p. 357.

However, in Leskov's letter to A. S. Suvorin of April 15, 1888, there is an undeciphered passage where the paper had been torn or cut: “Anatolij … wanted to bring me and Stasjulevic together,—he wanted to do it all himself. Afterwards Gončarov undertook the same thing. I had no desire for any of it because of the profound affront I still feel.I have no desire for anything at all.

I have what I need: I have enough to eat and the public is fond of me,” in Pis'ma russkikh pisatelej k A. S. Suvorinu, D. I. Abramovič, ed. (Leningrad, 1927), p. 70. The unidentified “Anatolij,” it seems to me, is clearly Anatoli) Fedorovic Koni, who thus did play the part of intermediary between Leskov and Stasjulevič, at least in 1888. The problem is further complicated by I. I. Jasinskij, who advances still another candidate for the post of matchmaker—V. I. Bibikov; see I. I. Jasinskij, Roman moej Źizni: Kniga vospominanij (Moscow-Leningrad, 1926), p. 198. However, Jasinskij's memoirs are in general extremely untrustworthy, and in this case he asserts that it was Leskov's “Prologue” stories which were printed in Vestnik Evropy—a factual error.

The truth of the matter seems to me to be this: as Leskov moved steadily to the “Left” toward the end of his life and burned the bridges that had linked him with the more official press, it occurred to some of his friends that it would be appropriate for him to publish in the journal of the Liberal opposition. They thereupon undertook to soothe the old, sores and wounded vanities on both sides. This began at least as early as 1888. The effort did not bear fruition, however, until 1891, when, as the letter to Tolstoj clearly shows, it was actually Solov'ev who took the manuscript of Polunoščniki to Stasjulevič. This is further confirmed by a letter of Solov'ëv to A. N. Pypin (n. d.): “I obtained a new story by Leskov for Vestnik Evropy and spent last night reading it instead of writing reviews,” VI. Solov'ëv: Pis'ma, È. L. Radlov, ed. (Petrograd, 1923), p. 173.

19 At least in that part of his correspondence which has been published. There is a gap in Leskov's correspondence with Tolstoj from May 18, 1889, to January 4, 1891, and the letters for this period seem to be irretrievably lost. However, there are quite a number of Leskov's other letters lying unpublished in various Soviet archives and libraries.

20 “Pis'ma N. S. Leskova k D. N. Certelevu,” N. S. Pleščunov, ed., Literaturnyj seminarij, A. V. Bagrij, ed. (Baku, 1928), p. 25. Part of this same letter is quoted by Drugov, B. M. in his edition of Leskov's Izbrannye proizvedenija (Moscow-Leningrad, 1937), p. 591 Google Scholar; though citing the same publication, for some reason he dates the letter August 20, 1890. While it is difficult to judge which of these dates is correct without reference to the original manuscript, it seems unlikely that the story was finished as early as August.

21 The rest of Khilkov's life is a curious study in the wheel come full circle. His “Tolstoyan” period lasted until about 1899; during that time he was administratively banished to the Caucasus for anti-clerical propaganda among the peasants (1892), had his two children taken away from him by the police (1893)— at the instigation of his mother and “with the blessing” of loann of Kronstadt— so that they might be properly baptized in the Orthodox Church (this incident made an enormous impression both on Leskov and on Tolstoj), and accompanied the Dukhobors on their great migration to Canada (1898). About this time he broke with the Tolstoyan doctrine of non-violence and, settling in Western Europe, joined the Socialist Revolutionary party, for which he wrote several pamphlets (1900-1905). At the end of 1905 he returned to Russia, retired to his farm, and became a devout upholder of the Orthodox Church. In 1914 he reentered the army, saying, “To die in the war would be the greatest blessing God could grant me.” This wish was fulfilled: Khilkov was killed on a reconnaissance mission in the Carpathians in October, 1914. Cf. Tolstoj, L. N., Polnoe sobranie socinenij (Moscow-Leningrad, 1928), LXXXV, 415–16; LXXXVII, 97.Google Scholar

22 “Printed from a copy preserved in the archives of N. S. Leskov,” L. N. Tolstoj, Letopisi: Gosudarstvennyj Literaturnyj Muzej, N. N. Gusey, ed. (Moscow, 1938), pp. 114-17. There is considerable confusion over the dating of this letter, and it is difficult to resolve it with any assurance. As published in 1938, the beginning of the letter bears the date August 1, 1891 (which would, of course, invalidate my thesis about the genesis of Polunoščniki). However, the printed text is taken, not from the original letter sent to Tolstoj, but from a copy of part of it which Tolstoj had made and sent to Leskov. This part did not include the salutation, nor, very probably, the date. The end of the letter is marked “2 VIII 90 goda” (p. 117). Both this letter and Tolstoj's reply to it are dated 1890 in Birjukov's biography of Tolstoj (Berlin, 1921) III, 179. The decisive consideration appears to me to be the following passage from Leskov's letter to Tolstoj of June 20, 1891: “And by the way—for a revelation of the character of Ivan II'ič's activities I enclose a copy for you of an original letter, which I am keeping, written by a certain Mme. Bogolepova to M. Terpigorev (Atava), the columnist on Novoe Vremja. [Unfortunately this letter does not seem to have survived.] This copy of Mme. Bogolepova's letter is worthy of being coupled with Khilkov's well-known letter,” Pis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu, pp. 104-5, italics mine. Only one letter of Khilkov's about Ioann of Rronstadt is known to have existed, and obviously Leskov could not refer in June, 1891, to a letter written in August of the same year.

On the other hand, in the footnotes to the published text of the letter the editor also ascribes the entry in Tolstoj's diary concerning it and his reply both to 1891. The volumes of the Jubilee Edition of Tolstoj's works containing Tolstoj's general correspondence for 1890-1891 as well as those containing his diaries for those years have yet to be published, and it hardly seems possible to resolve this question finally without access to these sources.

If it should be finally established that Khilkov's letter was written in 1891 and that Leskov refers in June to some other, inextant letter, or that Leskov's letter to Tolstoj is itself incorrectly dated, one would have to assume that the material from it was incorporated into Polunoslniki while the story was in proof.

Since this article was written, I discovered in the memoirs of F. F. Fidler additional evidence that Khilkov's letter is to be dated 1890, as well as further confirmation of the enormous impression this letter made on Leskov. Fidler met Leskov on November 19, 1890, at a party given by Aleksandra Nikolaevna Peškova-Toliverova, the editress of Igrusečka, a children's magazine. ”… During supper he [Leskov] informed us in detail of the contents of a letter from Prince Khilkov to Lev Tolstoj, in which the wonder-worker of Kronstadt was put in his proper place.” During the meal Fidler made the mistake, in a conversation with Leskov, of referring to Sergiev as Father loann. Leskov flew into a rage and shouted, “No, you are no Christian, or you would know that the Holy Scripture permits us to call ‘father’ only God and our own fathers!” Later he apologized for his rudeness. F. F. Fidler, “Literaturnye siluety, VII: N. S. Leskov,” Novoe Slovo (August, 1914), pp. 33-36.

23 It is amusing to note that an identical incident occurred about 1905 between loann of Kronstadt and Henry W. Nevinson, whose “stubborn British blood” would not permit him to kiss the priest's hand; see Nevinson, , op. cit., p. 253.Google Scholar

24 Even the saintly Klavdija seems to have had a living prototype in the niece of Sawa Timofeevic Morozov, an enormously wealthy merchant. She appeared in Petersburg during the famine of 1891 asking permission to give away a million rubles to the hungry, but directly, without the interference of priests and officials; this request was apparently refused. LeskoV comments in a letter, “She is becoming a legend in her own lifetime. These are the angels one should look for—angels who have come down to earth and live in skins like ours, and not people who are somewhere off in the mists of fantasy.” Šestidesjatye gody … , pp. 368-69. However, this letter was written November 5, 1891; I have no evidence that Leskov knew about Morozova in 1890, when Polunoščniki was written.

25 Cf. Aleksandra Narcizova, Pis'ma o putešestvijakh s otcem Ioannom Kronštadtskim na ego rodinu i v drugie mesta (St. Petersburg, 1894).

26 Of Leskov's twenty extant letters to Certelev only three have been published; the others may contain the explanation for his rejection.

27 Pis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu, p. 79. Uvertjura is one of the “slovečki” or trick words in the story—there is a pun on uvertka, “clever dodge.“

28 January 8, 1891, ibid., p. 84.

29 January 20, 1891, ibid., p. 91.

30 Letter of January 23, 1891, ibid., p. 94.

31 Letter of February 26, 1891, ibid., p. 101. What the censors missed was quickly picked up by the reactionary press, which lost no time in raising a hue and cry against Leskov for his “slander” of loann of Kronstadt, adding, of course, that the story was in any case artistically worthless and unworthy of serious consideration. Cf., among others, Arkhimandrit Antonij, “Znamenie vremeni,” Bogoslovskij Vestnik, February, 1892; Ju. Nikolaev, “Literaturnye zametki: Cto znamenuet ‘znamenie,'” Moskovskie Vedomosti, March 7, 1892; and an anonymous review, “Literaturno-kritičeskij fePeton,” GraŹdanin, December 3, 1891. A quotation from the last will serve for all of them: Polunoščniki “was written without any assistance from the Muse…. [It is] the most ordinary, vulgar, and vile ‘women's chatter,’ which no one on earth cares anything about.“

32 Ibid.

33 The first ten volumes of this, the first edition of Leskov's collected works, had been published by A. S. Suvorin in 1889-1890, but Leskov was displeased with Suvorin's business practices and published the eleventh volume with Marks, who also issued a twelfth, posthumous volume in 1896.

34 Letter of January 23, 1891, Pis'ma Tolstogo i k Tolstomu, p. 95.

35 It is entirely possible that some of the passages in the second, book version which are missing from the magazine text were not added later, but had been included in the original manuscript, then eliminated for reasons of censorship, and subsequently restored. The English journalist E. J. Dillon recalls, “My friend Leskoff entertained the deepest contempt for John of Cronstadt and read me a tremendous attack on him wrapped up in literary form. Part of it appeared later in the Messenger of Europe,” E. J. Dillon, The Eclipse of Russia (New York, 1918), p. 108 n., italics mine. There are, however, many passages which certainly could not have offended the censors, but which nonetheless show stylistic revision in the second version of the story. It is thus clear, at least, that Leskov did work over the text between 1891 and 1893.

36 The phrase "It shall be unto you according to your faith" was a particular favorite of Ioann of Kronstadt's. Narcizova, Cf., op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

37 Leo Tolstoy, “A Reply to the Synod's Edict of Excommunication and to Letters Received by Me Concerning It,” On Life and Essays on Religion, Aylmer Maude, tr. (London, 1934), p. 223.Google Scholar

38 Grossman, Leonid, N. S. Leskov: Žizn'—tvorčestvo—poetika (Moscow, 1945), p. 113.Google Scholar Grossman, for obvious reasons, tries valiantly to rehabilitate Leskov in terms of Stalinism by dredging up “materialist” elements in his ideology.

39 Grossman rather tends to dismiss the story for this reason, ibid., p. 242.