Tolstoy Nekrasov. III

A few words about the personalities who surrounded Kovalevskaya in childhood; father and mother. – Teacher Malevich; his pedagogical views. - English governess. - Uncle P.V. Korvin-Krukovsky. – Sister Anna .
Sofya Vasilievna Kovalevskaya, née Korvin-Krukovskaya, was born in Moscow on January 3, 1850. She especially treasured the first part of her double surname, about the origin of which she told the following legend, passed from generation to generation: the daughter of the Hungarian king Matthew Corvin married the Polish magnate Corvin-Krukovsky. Matvey Corvinus, as you know, was not only a great warrior, but also an enlightened patron of sciences, literature and the arts. President of the Paris Academy of Sciences, astronomer and physicist Jansen, mentioning this circumstance in his speech on the occasion of awarding the Kovalevskaya Prize, said: “Obviously, Madame Kovalevskaya inherited the love of science and literature from her famous ancestor, and we congratulate her on this.”

Elizaveta Fedorovna Korvin-Krukovskaya.

We also know other ancestors of Kovalevskaya, from whom she high probability could inherit her talents. Her mother, Elizaveta Feodorovna Schubert, was the granddaughter of the famous astronomer Schubert and the daughter of the talented General Schubert, whose centenary of birth was recently celebrated by the Academies of Sciences and the General Staff. The Korvin-Krukovsky family often talked a lot about the mental similarity of the future professor of mathematics at Stockholm University with his grandfather and great-grandfather on Kovalevskaya’s mother’s side. Before we follow Kovalevskaya’s life step by step, we will introduce the reader to the main persons among whom she spent her childhood and youth.
M. M. Semevsky in his travel essays and sketches says:

“The road from Velikiye Luki to Nevel (Vitebsk province) is extremely picturesque; it stretches almost from Luk to the first Senkovo ​​station as a ridge of hills, on both sides of which lie vast fields, groves of young forests in places of long-cut down forests, and here and there mirrors of lakes open up... Six miles beyond the Senkovo ​​station, and on the main road , on a hill, in a shady grove, a stone chapel rises - here are the remains of Lieutenant General V.V. Korvin-Krukovsky and his wife Elizaveta Feodorovna. Dry in his external form, somewhat inflated with his generalship, old man Korvin-Krukovsky went to his grave, as if not mixing with ordinary mortals, not in a common cemetery, but, as you see, apart.”

That's how it was general impression, which Kovalevskaya’s father carried out on everyone he knew. In the last years of his life, however, he became much more accessible. However, in my memory, husband and wife Korvin-Krukovsky left sharply opposite memories. He is tall, thin, gloomy, with a dark complexion, with bristly eyebrows; she is short, rather plump, with traces of a beautiful complexion, carefully, tastefully dressed, helpful and friendly to everyone, lively, cheerful, somewhat hasty both in her movements and in conversation - in a word, the wife gave the impression of a birch grove, illuminated the autumn sun, and the husband - a dense forest, into which it is scary to even look. According to Kovalevskaya, her father also had gypsy blood, because her grandfather or great-grandfather was married to a gypsy. Ardent passions undoubtedly lived in Krukovsky’s soul; He married late and even when married he played cards very heavily and, according to the old nanny, he lost so much on the eve of the birth of his daughter Sophia that he had to pawn all his wife’s diamonds. At the same time, he was a man with intelligence, character and heart; he deeply and tenderly loved his wife and children and was seriously concerned about their future. Moving in high society, Kovalevskaya’s father could not help but know about the upcoming peasant reform; he realized what a revolution it would bring about in the economic situation of the landowners, and decided that it would no longer be possible to manage the farm carelessly. This consciousness forced him to radically change his morals and lifestyle; he settled on his estate and, constantly busy with business and housekeeping, used every means in his power to give his children a good, thorough education. Who knows what moments of struggle and mental suffering this withdrawn man experienced in his secluded office, where he spent most of the day! He treated his wife, who was much younger than him, as his eldest daughter.
Kovalevskaya describes with great tenderness the character of her father, whose severity was only external, feigned, developing as a result of the ingrained thought that a man should be stern. My own observations confirm this observation. During the first time we met Kovalevskaya, in Switzerland, we saw each other often; she lived in a hotel with her friend Lermontova and her father, and her mother stayed with her eldest daughter. Each time the general greeted me very dryly and, when I appeared, went into his room, but then, listening to our conversation, he became infected with our gaiety, appeared again and joked and laughed with us. The next time the same story was repeated. But he always treated most people invariably dryly, and few people managed to see this walking Finster-Horn free from clouds. With a high probability we can say that he loved only his loved ones and considered himself and them immeasurably higher than all other mortals. Such exceptional affection, perhaps, even pleased those close to her (that’s why Kovalevskaya preferred her father to her mother). According to Kovalevskaya’s first teacher, Malevich, Korvin-Krukovsky loved mathematics, was knowledgeable in this subject and wanted his beloved daughter Sophia to also willingly study it. He served in the artillery and was at one time the head of the arsenal in Moscow. Having risen to the rank of lieutenant general, the old man retired and lived in the village until the end of his life.
Kovalevskaya’s mother was German by birth and upbringing, but her soul gravitated toward everything Russian. While remaining a Protestant, she showed great sympathy for rituals Orthodox Church, and her house was put on a Russian footing in all respects. At the same time, the purely Russian morals of her husband and children remained alien to her forever. She had more traditional forms of relationships with people, less direct and more developed tact than her daughters. She was also very neat, always found flaws in their clothes and more than once told them: “You like to dress up, but don’t make sure that you have everything you need.” Accustomed from childhood to be attentive to all people, starting with her own servants, Kovalevskaya’s mother was indignant that her daughters did not attach importance to the little things that were important, in her opinion. For example, she was always worried when her eldest daughter, despite her kindness and generosity, often made her dressmaker wait too long for her. In general, Krukovskaya was a very extraordinary woman and, moreover, an enthusiastic person; She loved music passionately and played well herself. Thanks to her strict German upbringing, her hobbies never went beyond the limits of duty and decency. However, a purely German life, completely absorbing a woman with petty domestic interests, was unbearable for her; Russian morals, in any case, provided greater scope for her inclinations.
From Kovalevskaya’s memoirs, we see that the beautiful and elegant mother rarely looked into their nursery. But this was, firstly, a general phenomenon at that time; secondly, she was a Lutheran, and the children were Orthodox: she had to leave it to the nanny to teach them to pray; then, as we will see, the energetic governess took their upbringing into her own hands.
So, the family took up little time from Korvin-Krukovskaya; In her youth she had a lot of fun, and then she loved to do good, to help the unfortunate, and in his memoirs Malevich rightly calls her a bright person. It remains to be regretted that such a mother did not take a direct part in the upbringing of her gifted children. The influence of the father in this matter, as we will see, was more active.
From her mother, Kovalevskaya inherited a pretty face, average height and a pleasant, gentle attitude towards everyone; from the father - concentration of thought, depth of feelings and strength of passions.

The first years of Kovalevskaya’s childhood passed under the exclusive influence of her nanny, who, however, was so similar to all other good nannies and had so few peculiarities that in Kovalevskaya’s memoirs we do not even meet her name, although a lot is said about her and with love. From the nanny, the upbringing and education of the Korvin-Krukovsky children passed into the hands of Malevich’s home teacher and an English governess, about whom we will now say a few words.
The son of a small nobleman in the western provinces, Joseph Ignatievich Malevich was educated at a higher six-grade school in the town of Kreslavka, Vitebsk province. He fell in love with teaching very early and, having passed the established exam for the title of home teacher, devoted himself entirely to the upbringing and education of young men and women.
His knowledge could not be very extensive, but the little that he was taught, he apparently knew firmly and well. On the pages of “Russian Antiquity” we find a detailed outline of his teaching activities in the Korvin-Krukovsky house for the decade from 1858 to 1868. By his character, Malevich did not represent anything special that would be interesting to describe; that is why he did not take a place in Kovalevskaya’s literary memoirs. Newer biographies we will have to restore Malevich’s right to one of the most prominent places in it. He taught Kovalevskaya for ten years. These same years made up a quarter of her entire life. In the Krukovskys’ house, Malevich behaved like a very small person, tried to please everyone, or at least did not do anything unpleasant to anyone. This was the general's constant partner in the card game, a silent, respectful admirer of the general's wife. He avoided clashes with the “characteristic” Englishwoman and did not take part in disputes. Compliant in the little things of life, Malevich could freely get things done while others argued about words. And when case concerned the direct interests of his pets, this humble man was both brave and persistent. For example, considering it harmful to continue the home education of his student, the son of Korvin-Krukovsky, he advised him to be placed in one of the St. Petersburg gymnasiums. The conscientious, straightforward advice pointing out the inadequacy of raising the boy at home did not please his father and mother; however, his parents soon followed him. Such was Malevich’s influence in the Korvin-Krukovsky house, where he kept himself quieter than water, lower than the grass.
Malevich found space and leisure for his own studies in the Krukovskys’ house. There were three children in the family: the eldest daughter was an older girl and spent little time studying, but spent more time reading; the youngest son was still small, and Malevich for many years, strictly speaking, was engaged only in Kovalevskaya. He did not waste time and, using the means provided to him, followed the successes of pedagogy. Living in contentment, in the quiet of the village, Malevich thought a lot about his work, discussed methods and, most importantly, steadily shunned routine and moved forward. He says: “To stop at what has been achieved or to be content with what has been done means to lag behind the continuous movement of human thought, and therefore constant development and self-improvement in every matter, and even more so educational, there is a significant need. And is he able, is he able to develop his pets who has stopped in his development ... "
In his free time, Malevich was his student’s companion: he chatted with her about this and that, often in a childish, naive way he made the student get carried away and gladly developed his views and opinions about various subjects in front of her.
Malevich was fifty years old at that time, but thanks to his lively character and love for children, he shared even her childhood fun with his student: he flew a huge kite in the autumn wind, played with a ball - and then he carefully followed her, observed and studied her complex inner the world, pondering its future. He wished that fate would deprive her of an abundance of earthly goods, so that she would not follow the beaten path of other noble and rich girls, but would take a high place in literary world; but at the same time he was worried that they had gone too far in mathematics, and in order to reassure himself, he openly talked with the student’s father, expressing fears that rapid success in the sciences could lead to a result opposite to what was expected, that is, she could take an unusual path . At that time, women were already striving for higher education. And this duality of desires is quite understandable to us in Malevich.
Malevich, of course, knew that the lives of people who follow the same path are happier than the lives of individuals who are breaking a new path. Parents and educators always wish their children happiness above all.
But at the time when these doubts crept into the teacher’s soul, the father did not share them; he was proud of his Sophia’s success in mathematics, but it never occurred to him that for the sake of mathematics she would give up a prominent position in the world, which she could count on due to her attractive appearance and brilliant mind.

The subject of his bitter reflections at that time was his eldest daughter Anna, already infected with the ideas floating in the air. She was also a very talented, promising, lively person; she had a great influence on the development of her younger sister and on her fate. Kovalevskaya, knowing her sister’s abilities better than anyone else, could never come to terms with the fact that she did not take her rightful place in life. And this happened - we can say with confidence - only due to the fact that Anna Krukovskaya received an upbringing completely different from the one that befell her younger sister. She was the queen of children's balls in Moscow and Kaluga at the age at which her sister diligently studied under the guidance of the kind but demanding Malevich.
From early childhood, Anna was taught to be lazy and absent-minded; then the solitary life in the village, which had such a fruitful effect on the development of Sophia Krukovskaya, did not bring any benefit to Anna, but only made her a dreamer, a dreamer, and deprived her of the opportunity to study life in her youth. The lack of systematic education and the habit of work prevented her from acquiring a higher education, and her general development and other conditions prevented her from being simply happy. Death early put an end to her unsuccessful life in all respects, but she will live on in the memories of her famous sister, and she should also have a prominent place in Kovalevskaya’s biography. Under the influence of her older sister, the younger sister developed a love of literature, the ability to analyze her inner world, and think deeply about the issues of life. In general, we can say that Kovalevskaya’s life would have gone differently if her sister had not intervened in it too early.
The Krukovskys' first governess was a Frenchwoman; She was more involved with Anna and had almost nothing to do with the younger children, whose upbringing was soon entrusted to the Englishwoman who replaced her.

From the hands of the nanny, Kovalevskaya fell into the hands of the English governess, Margarita Frantsevna Smith. This typical personality, pursuing quite tangible and definite goals of education, despite all the unfavorable conditions, left traces of her influence in her beloved pet. She provided a useful counteraction to the complete licentiousness of the physical and moral education children of Korvin-Krukovsky. However, the deeply conservative, straightforward and limited Mrs. Smith could hardly understand the sensitive organization of little Sophia and mercilessly crushed her in her iron hands. I had to meet her fourteen years after she left the Korvin-Krukovsky house, but even at that time Margarita Frantsevna still cast her lightning-fast glances and was distinguished by great strength of body and spirit; often appearing in the Kovalevskys’ house, she demanded honor for herself and interfered in their affairs more than the soft and compliant Korvin-Krukovskaya. When the Kovalevskys' daughter was born, Mrs. Smith, with her characteristic energy, sought to take over the upbringing of this child, and in general she wanted to put Sophia's house on decent leg.

Kovalevskaya's domineering teacher, Mrs. Smith, of course, had no direct influence on her mental development; it was in the hands of two completely opposite personalities: her uncle Pyotr Vasilyevich Korvin-Krukovsky and her home teacher Malevich. The first was a man not of this world, a self-taught amateur who possessed a very diverse and fragmentary knowledge; but an enthusiast, perfectly capable of arousing interest and developing curiosity. He was a physically strong man, but meek and kind, like a child.
From just a superficial acquaintance with the personalities who surrounded Kovalevskaya in childhood, one can get the idea that their influence on the impressionable girl was extremely diverse and served to develop in her the most opposite sides of her mind and character. We will see that versatility has indeed always been the main feature of Kovalevskaya. But this versatility was not the result of a combination of happy external conditions alone: ​​Kovalevskaya inherited from her ancestors the most opposite qualities of mind and character; Russian, Polish, German and, finally, Gypsy blood flowed in her veins.

The first thing Tolstoy subjected to critical examination was the very spirit of the circle. He rejected the idyll of a friendly union of poets, harmony among the chaos of social injustice, doubting the moral right of writers to solitude, satisfaction with themselves and their activities. The concept of social progress, the idea that art in itself, regardless of its content, teaches people and promotes progress, all these tenets of aesthetics, which, in the words of L. Tolstoy (24, 4-7), became a kind of religion for many writers in the 50s, and were questioned by them.

Behind this religion of art, faith in his calling and its historical significance, Tolstoy saw egoism, a justification for a socially passive position. Tolstoy’s attacks on the “fundamental” idea of ​​serving art as a higher kind of activity, placing the “priest of art” above the “crowd” occupied with material concerns, were in their pathos very close to Chernyshevsky’s position in “Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality.” An analogy can be drawn between Tolstoy’s skepticism regarding the peaceful atmosphere of the circle of writers and the rejection of the spirit of the circle by Chernyshevsky, and then Dobrolyubov. The significant difference between the criticism of Tolstoy, on the one hand, and Chernyshevsky, on the other, was that Tolstoy subjected “modern concepts of beauty” and the attitude of their bearers to the social position of the writer to ethical and psychological analysis, and Chernyshevsky gave them a socio-political assessment . In “Essays on the Gogol Period,” Chernyshevsky stated that the preaching of the theory of pure art aims to subordinate art to the lordly-sybaritic ideal of enjoying an idle life.

The harshness of Tolstoy, who survived the great national tragedy of Sevastopol, full of the harsh impressions of the Caucasian war, his insistence on proving the immorality of leaving for the sphere of pure intellectualism and art was painfully perceived by writers who interpreted his desperate forays into the creative oasis they had preserved among vulgarity and obscurantism as Mephistophelian skepticism.

Nekrasov directly wrote to Tolstoy that it was not the essence of the concepts that he ardently put forward and defended in disputes with members of the Sovremennik circle, but ethical maximalism and psychological analysis that deprived him of spontaneity and separated him from the best members of the writing community: “It seems to me that they are not wild and stubborn to the impossible limitations in you, the concepts that you discovered (and which you soon abandoned) set me and some others against you, and the following: we revealed ourselves to you with all the good nature that constitutes, perhaps, the best (somewhat childish) side of our circle , and you suspected us of insincerity, or rather, dishonesty. The phrase could and, most likely, was present in us unconsciously, but you understood it as the basis, as the main thing in us. From that moment on, we could no longer be clever - freedom disappeared - unconscious or conscious looking around became inevitable... Relationships could not reach the degree of simplicity with which they began... This seems to me true not only for itself, but also more for Turgenev" (X, 329-330).

As is known, Tolstoy accused Nekrasov less than others of “phrase.” In Tolstoy's reviews of Nekrasov there was always an acknowledgment of the poet's sincerity and straightforwardness. However, Nekrasov was offended by Tolstoy’s attacks on the negative attitude towards modern social orders accepted among Sovremennik writers. When, having visited Yasnaya Polyana and in the estates of his brother and sister, Tolstoy saw with bitterness poverty and ruin. Nekrasov, who learned about these impressions of Tolstoy, wrote to him: “So you didn’t like a lot around you. Well, now you will believe that you can swear sincerely, and not just out of phrases” (X, 360).

Noteworthy is the apparent contradiction in the characterization of Tolstoy’s views in Nekrasov’s letter quoted above (dated March 31/April 12, 1857). Nekrasov speaks of Tolstoy’s concepts, which were stubborn to the point of impossible limitations, and at the same time asserts that he “soon abandoned these concepts.”

In order to understand what was the source of L. Tolstoy’s “changeability of judgments,” one should pay attention to the explanation of the concept “phrase” contained in the same letter from Nekrasov, which was for Tolstoy in these years the main means of expressing his distrust of views, works of art and especially to the declarations of writers. Nekrasov gives two “disclosures” of this concept: 1) a false, exaggerated expression of feelings and thoughts and 2) the routineness of the thought itself.

Tolstoy’s struggle against the “phrase” expressed, first of all, his rejection of routine and ready-made solutions. Tolstoy longed for a movement of thought and spontaneously carried out this movement, destroying the isolation of axioms, which he qualified as “phrases” (routine thoughts), and creating controversies to these concepts. Therefore, it was quite possible for him to assimilate the thought against which he had recently bitterly argued. He assimilated this thought no longer in its dogmatic, unambiguous and static form, but in a controversial way, in combination with its opposites, in a struggle with them. Thus, it lost its absoluteness and one-sidedness, turning into an element of the further development of knowledge, into one of the possible aspects of reasoning. The other side of Tolstoy’s struggle against the “phrase” was no less important for the development of his concepts and his worldview. Attacking affectation and insincerity in the expression of thought, Tolstoy verified theoretical thinking with practical ethics. The criterion for the sincerity of the theorist’s motives was for him the readiness to combine theory with practice, to accept all the real life consequences of the theoretical train of thought and bear responsibility for them. Therefore, in disputes, he constantly appealed to a sphere that lay beyond pure theory, beyond aesthetics and art. This type of criticism especially irritated the members of the writers' circle.

This was precisely the meaning of the clash between Tolstoy and Turgenev, described in Fet’s memoirs: Tolstoy questioned the sincerity of the liberalism of Turgenev and other members of the Sovremennik circle. He told Turgenev: “I cannot admit that what you have expressed is your convictions. I stand in the doorway with a dagger or saber and say: “As long as I’m alive, no one will come in here.” This is the conviction." Therefore, Fet cites the story of Tolstoy’s dispute with Turgenev to confirm his impression of Tolstoy: “... from the first minute I noticed in young Tolstoy an involuntary opposition to everything generally accepted in the field of judgment.” Tolstoy attacked not so much the essence of the writers’ beliefs as their dogmatism (routineness) and spoke about the moral duty of the bearer of the idea, about his responsibility for theory.

The same method of verifying theory with practice manifested itself in another case, which Fet recalled in a letter to L. Tolstoy on June 20, 1876: ““I remember the unimaginable indignation of the former Turgenev circle when you bluntly told them that their beliefs were just phrases, and that the conviction of rightness would now go to the Winter Palace with his sermon, as Luther did: “Ich kann nicht anders, Gott hilf mir” [I cannot do otherwise, God help me].”

Members of the literary Areopagus could not agree with this method of “testing” the theory. Turgenev believed that literary activity is in itself social activity(cf. Pushkin’s statement recorded by Gogol: “The words of a poet are already his deeds”).

In the same letter in which Nekrasov reproached Tolstoy for his skepticism and distrust of the passive liberal beliefs of writers, he defended his poem “The Poet and the Citizen,” the reprint of which in Sovremennik brought censorship and administrative persecution on the magazine. Meanwhile, in this poem, Nekrasov’s author’s position is very close to the one on which Tolstoy stood in his criticism of “routine” political and literary concepts. Nekrasov, like Tolstoy, goes beyond the vicious circle of aesthetic issues, making the Citizen the interlocutor and judge of the Poet. The citizen rejects the doctrine of going into a “profession,” into pure poetry and pure theory. Like Tolstoy, he calls on the Poet to confirm his convictions by deed, risk, feat and sacrifice.

Nekrasov, unlike Tolstoy, proceeds from an assessment of the essence of ideas and their political significance, and not from consideration of the ethical position of the bearer of theories, however, the similarity of the demands that he, through the mouth of a Citizen, made of the Poet is very close to the criteria based on which Tolstoy assessed the sincerity of the writers. Nekrasov was intimately close to both lyrical characters leading the conversation in his program poem. He dreamed of high civic consciousness, longed for achievement, but carried a burden of disappointment and skepticism. In a letter to Tolstoy, Nekrasov put skepticism and disappointment on a par with the beautiful phrase: “The routine of hypocrisy and the routine of irony destroy simplicity and frankness in us” (X, 331), he asserted, clearly considering both himself and L. Tolstoy to be the carrier of irony.

The awareness of the inferiority and immorality of a balanced, harmonious existence in the circle of the intellectual elite, of limitations to literary interests, forced Tolstoy to argue vigorously with Turgenev about the meaning of literary professionalism. In a circle of writers who were able to finally reject the aristocratic disdain for writing as a profession and realize that literary work introduces them to a historical act, gives them spiritual freedom and the right to a public calling, Tolstoy passionately asserted that he did not consider himself a writer, that Shakespeare and Homer Only people of the “phrase” can admire it. Less than a year later (in 1856) he claimed that he had found “my path and calling—literature.” (60, 108).

The sharp revival of the political life of society, the maturation of a revolutionary situation, the interest that gripped the entire reading public in social, political, economic issues and in works of an openly journalistic direction were perceived by Tolstoy as a historically justified and substantiated, “normal” phenomenon. However, when from the lips of Saltykov he heard statements very similar to those with which he himself had recently driven the members of the “Turgenev circle” into despair, Tolstoy categorically defended art and its lofty mission. On October 21, 1857, Tolstoy wrote to V.P. Botkin: “Saltykov even explained to me that the time has now passed for fine literature (and not for Russia now, but in general), that in all of Europe Homer and Goethe will no longer be reread”; and further he writes about his confidence that art plays a primary role in the life of society (60, 234). True to the principle of translating ideas into reality, he is at the same time keen on drawing up practical projects aimed at improving the lives of the people (a project on forestry management, later a project on the liberation of Yasnaya Polyana peasants), and starts a special magazine that should unite people, who believe “in the independence and eternity of art” (60, 248). Tolstoy’s very idea of ​​​​creating such a magazine did not express a commitment to the theory of art for art’s sake, but the need for an argument with established, triumphant points of view, the need for dialogue, in the struggle from which he always drew strength for movement. It was not this or that point of view, but the possibility of the triumph of one or another point of view that seemed to frighten him.

The personality of Tolstoy, immersed in introspection, skeptically distrustful, impatient with enthusiasm and romantic phrases, should have been associated in Turgenev’s mind with the Hamletic type, the “superfluous man.” Turgenev probably imagined that Tolstoy was precisely that real person whose involvement in constant literary work, in social and literary interests “saved” from amateurism, from retreating into fruitless reflection, from skepticism. The love interest of V.V. Arsenyeva and the quick disappointment in her, the constant introspection that interfered with the immediate simplicity of his relationships with people, the irresistible eloquence of the young writer and his inherent critical maximalism - all these features of Tolstoy’s personality and behavior could contribute to Turgenev’s interpretation of his character in line with the usual socio-historical typology, I saw in him a “Hamletist” (cf. Rudin).

Only writing seemed to Turgenev as a sphere in which the endless and rapid development of thought seething in Tolstoy could find not a false, but a true, practical expression. Thus, Turgenev’s friendly participation in Tolstoy’s fate was reflected in the desire to firmly connect the gifted writer with literature, to protect him from the danger of noble amateurism. Tolstoy looked for mutual sympathy, love, readiness for self-sacrifice for the sake of a friend and complete frankness in friendship. To be friends, according to Tolstoy, meant to argue, “testing” each other with questions, to force the other to accept into his soul the results of your spiritual development. Tolstoy was not so attracted to anyone by the thirst for such friendship as to Turgenev.

Tolstoy strove for dialogue, argument with a powerful opponent equal to him in strength or stronger than himself. The development of his thought required the presence of controversies, counter-arguments, objections, which he treated no less seriously and carefully than the main course of his thought, and on which he sometimes quite seriously tried to build a counter-theory - the “Euclidean geometry” of his main view. At times, Tolstoy became deeply involved in this counter-theory (for example, the theory of pure art), which contradicted the cardinal views that determined his work throughout his life.

It should be taken into account that the development of Tolstoy’s thought was logical and organic, that he never deviated from the basic ethical principles that were important to him and, “educating” his thought in controversies, ultimately came to its unity and integrity. The desire to fight a strong opponent often pushed Tolstoy to speak out against the point of view that he considered the dominant one, the most influential. Nekrasov turned to Tolstoy in the hope that the latter would support him in a dispute with Sovremennik employees who attacked the poem “Poet and Citizen,” since otherwise the author of “Sevastopol Stories” would have been among the writers who “took the side of the strong” (X, 331). “Taking the side of the strong” was not in Tolstoy’s spirit—he was attracted to arguing with the strong.

Turgenev impressed Tolstoy. Artistic talent, philosophical culture, extraordinary creative activity, the ability for great feeling, a sharp mind and high authority in the literary environment distinguished him even from the brilliant galaxy of literary artists who surrounded him.

Turgenev also sought friendship with Tolstoy, but he soon became convinced that friendship with him meant constant struggle, constant argument. This did not frighten Turgenev, he did not avoid the biggest disputes with his closest friends, but disputes with Tolstoy frightened him because Tolstoy constantly subjected his personality to moral analysis. In his treatment of Tolstoy, Turgenev could not overcome the habit of instructing and lecturing his younger brother in writing. He did not hide his desire to strengthen Tolstoy’s connection with literature and thus defeat his “reflection”, skepticism, and free him from the traits of a solitary thinker: “every person should, without ceasing to be a person, be a specialist; Specialism excludes amateurism (sorry about all these “isms”), and to be an amateur means to be powerless. Until now, what you have done still shows an amateur, an unusually talented one, but an amateur...” (Letters, III, 188), he wrote to Tolstoy in January 1858. “You become free, free from your own views and prejudices” (ibid., 75), he stated with satisfaction a year earlier, noting that his correspondent, L. Tolstoy, was developing and that his ardent defense of certain points of view did not mean a readiness to lock himself in a dogmatically inert system.

Tolstoy's penchant for controversy was an expression of his tendency to constantly expand the range of comprehended phenomena, to critically evaluate different methods of understanding reality. Turgenev understood the fruitfulness of his disputes with Tolstoy and saw the constructive beginning that lies behind Tolstoy’s controversies. Turgenev’s inherent sensitivity to the new was reflected here.

On the threshold of the 60s, when the ideological understanding of the historical era that ended with the revolution of 1848 acquired living practical significance, the idea of ​​the struggle of opposites as a necessary condition for the development process and the unity of opposites as the form of existence of any living phenomenon. At this time, Herzen was able to fully appreciate the significance of the dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners, the ideological discussion of the 40s, as the greatest progressive phenomenon of the era and treat the concepts of Slavophiles and Westerners as a historical unity of opposing solutions to the problems of our time. It is interesting to note that among Turgenev’s notes, representing preparatory material for the stories and stories of the 60s, the following is contained: “Dispute is the best thing, ideas in society” (X, 324).

In Turgenev's novels of the late 50s and 60s, ideological dispute became the main structural element. The depiction of ideological disputes was a form of expression of the author's thoughts and the focus of the narrative in works of such different writers 60s, like Tolstoy and Pomyalovsky, Dostoevsky and Sleptsov.

Not wanting to accept without independent verification even such a strong tradition in Sovremennik as the denial of Slavophil doctrines, L. Tolstoy gets acquainted with the Slavophiles, carefully looks at them, tries to assess the personality of each of them. Taking a keen interest in the activities of Belinsky, the main one; ideologist of radical Westernism (Belinsky’s legacy became the subject of sharp attacks from Druzhinin and A. Grigoriev, and Chernyshevsky came to his defense), Tolstoy at the same time showed interest in K. Aksakov and Khomyakov. However, Tolstoy's intolerant attitude towards attempts to impose a ready-made doctrine on him created a deep internal alienation between him and the Slavophiles.

Reflecting on why complete spiritual intimacy, which they both strive for, is impossible between him and Tolstoy, Turgenev put forward, among other reasons (the difference in ages, life plans and prospects), the following: “...You yourself are too strong on your own feet, to become someone’s follower” (Letters, III, 13). Tolstoy, whom Turgenev perceived as a “Hamletist,” appeared to him already at the beginning of their acquaintance as a strong mind, seeking and developing new ideas, new theories, and therefore incapable of complete fusion, unity with another, eternally creating theoretical mind. This approach of Turgenev to the private question of his relationship with Tolstoy expressed the peculiarity of his view of the nature of personality, which was predominantly theoretical. Turgenev, again and again making attempts to get closer to Tolstoy (as Tolstoy did), quickly realized that friendship “in the Russian sense” was impossible for them, and internally came to terms with this. Tolstoy remained deeply dissatisfied with his relationship with Turgenev, condemning him for his coldness and inability to form friendly love. Rapprochement with Annenkov, Botkin, Druzhinin, and then with Fet could not replace for him the friendship that he dreamed of and which he saw as an alliance with Turgenev.

Subsequently, in War and Peace, Tolstoy realized his dream of high ideological and spiritual friendship, depicting the relationship between Pierre and Prince Andrei. It is characteristic that the first question that Prince Andrei asks Pierre in private is the question about the profession, about the future “specialty” of the young gifted man, that is, the question that Turgenev constantly posed to Tolstoy; It is also characteristic that in dealing with his friend, Prince Andrei, like Turgenev, involuntarily falls into the patronizing tone of the elder, condescending to the unbridledness and ardor of the neophyte.

The Sovremennik circle disintegrated under the pressure of historical circumstances and under the influence of changes in the political situation. This change for the magazine’s employees was expressed in the appearance in their circle of people of a different social background, with different beliefs: commoners, revolutionary democrats. Writers of the older generation, who went through the school of romantic aesthetics, Hegelianism and intense theoretical discussions of the 40s, imagined that the appearance of “popovichs” in the magazine with new, “anti-aesthetic” principles violated the harmony of their creative and selected literary community. In fact, the change in the political situation in society entailed a change in the meaning of the aesthetic concept of the writers' circle.

His isolation lost the meaning of a demonstrative refusal to participate in the life of a society that was enslaved and voiceless, and turned into open passivity, into a confession of hopeless skepticism. From the refuge to which thinking people retreated to escape the persecution of Nicholas's despotism, the pursuit of pure art, exclusive concentration on isolated literary interests, turned into a kind of fortress - a prison, destructive for the development of art.

Tolstoy did not immediately understand this. Seeing the “triumph” of denunciation, the growing influence of Chernyshevsky’s aesthetic concepts and the weakening interest in literature as art among the mass of readers, he entered into a temporary alliance with Druzhinin, Annenkov and Botkin and was inflamed by the idea of ​​defending artistic, purely professional interests, but this position of his is no longer evoked sympathy from such strong members of the recent commonwealth as Turgenev and Nekrasov. They stated that Druzhinin’s “purely artistic” position was essentially completely fruitless. Turgenev responded about Druzhinin’s article “Criticism of the Gogol period and our relationship to it”: “You can’t feed anyone with these skillfully baked pies with “net”” (Letters, III, 58); Nekrasov expressed his opinion even more sharply about the futility of Druzhinin’s position, which preaches avoidance of the interests of real life. “You cannot share the convictions of Messrs. Goncharov and Druzhinin, although I was assured of this as certain,” he wrote to Tolstoy (X, 332). Both Turgenev and Nekrasov saw the living significance of Chernyshevsky’s articles “Essays on the Gogol period of Russian literature,” which restored historical truth about the activities of Belinsky, and at the same time affirming the social character of Russian literature.

After leaving Sovremennik, Druzhinin did not shy away from literary intrigues in the fight against his recent brothers in the “union of poets”. The utopia of the writers' brotherhood has collapsed.

Its place was soon taken by the ideal of the brotherhood of “new people”, united by a common social status and political convictions. The words of A. I. Herzen clearly and visibly came true: civilization, endless as thought, “draws the ideals of life” (VI, 31).

N. N. Gusev. 1) Two years with L.N. Tolstoy. M., 1928, p. 75; 2) L.N. Tolstoy. Materials for biography from 1865 to 1869, p. 13.

A. Fet. My memories. Part 1. M., 1890, p. 106.

Quote by: N. N. Gusev. L. N. Tolstoy. Materials for biography from 1855 to 1869, pp. 43-44.

N.V. Gogol. Full collection op. T. I—XIV. M., 1937-1952, vol. VIII, p. 229. - Further references to this publication are given in the text.

B. M. Eikhenbaum noted that Turgenev saw in Tolstoy character traits that he considered typical for Hamlet (see article “Hamlet and Don Quixote”), and directed his “educational efforts” to develop “traits” in Tolstoy Don Quixote" (B. Eikhenbaum. About prose. L., 1969, pp. 148-151).

Polemicizing with M. M. Bakhtin, who considers Dostoevsky’s individual feature to be his ability to penetrate into the dialogical nature of consciousness, B. I. Bursov argues that such an attitude towards consciousness is characteristic of Russian realistic literature of the second half of the 19th century V. in general (see: B.I. Bursov. Realism always and today. L., 1967, pp. 255-256). The point of view of B. I. Bursov seems reasonable to us, however, it should be noted that it was M. M. Bakhtin in his book “Problems of Dostoevsky’s Creativity” who first revealed this feature of realism of the second half of the 19th century. using the example of one of the writers who most fully expressed it in his work.

In the draft text of “1805”, Prince Andrei’s first address to Pierre at an evening with Anna Pavlovna Scherer was accompanied by a “remark” destroyed by Tolstoy when publishing the text in the Russky Vestnik: “... the prince asked joyfully, but with a patronizing and arrogant tinge.” . Turgenev’s attitude towards him was also friendly, but, as it seemed to Tolstoy, arrogant and patronizing.

Nick. Smirnov-Sokolsky

Nick. Smirnov-Sokolsky. Stories about books. Fifth edition

M., "Book", 1983

N.V. Gogol. "Hanz Küchelgarten"

N. A. Nekrasov. "Dreams and Sounds"

I. I. Lazhechnikov. "First experiments in prose and poetry"

I. S. Turgenev "Parasha" and "Conversation"

A. A. Fet. "Lyrical Pantheon"

A.K. Tolstoy. "Ghoul"

I have to start this story with a book that I don’t have and which I probably won’t be able to get anymore. Once (in the early thirties) she beckoned with the opportunity to come to my shelves, but circumstances were such that I had to give it up. The book went into state storage. It was the rarest of all rare Russian books - the first lifetime book of the young Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol - "Ganz Küchelgarten" 1.

Written in verse, this “Idyll in Pictures” was published by Gogol under the pseudonym “V. Alov” in 1829. Gogol was only 20 years old at this time.

The book arrived in stores at the end of June 1829 and remained on sale for about a month, without arousing absolutely any demand.

But there appeared a sharply negative review by N. Polevoy in the Moscow Telegraph and the same in the Northern Bee, which said that “the world would not have lost anything if this first attempt young talent lay hidden." These reviews had a depressing effect on the young Gogol, and he, according to P. A. Kulish, "immediately, accompanied by his faithful servant Yakim, went to bookstores, collected copies, found a room in the hotel and burned everything up to one" 2.

According to bibliographers, three or four copies of the book have survived, representing the greatest bibliographic rarity. I have not heard that the Hanz Küchelgarten is now in any private collection.

Gogol managed to keep secret until the end of his life that “V. Alov” was his pseudonym. During the author’s lifetime, the book was not reprinted, and the first indication that it was written by Gogol came only in 1852. Documentary evidence of this was found even later. Only in 1909, Gogol’s letter to the censor K. Serbinovich was found and published in the Russian Archive with a request to speed up the passage of his “Hanz Küchelgarten” through censorship. The question of Gogol's authorship has already become indisputable.

Before this, the secret was known only to Gogol himself and his faithful Yakim. His friend and fellow student at the Nezhin gymnasium N. Ya. Prokopovich guessed about this Gogol secret, but he remained silent until he was 18.52 years old. This year, the brilliant Russian satirist, who began his career with the burning of Hanz Küchelgarten and ended her by burning the manuscript of the second volume of “Dead Souls”, went into eternity.

I only once managed to hold one of the very few surviving copies of the book “Hanz Küchelgarten”, which was burned by the author. Just hold...

The fate of N. A. Nekrasov’s first book turned out to be similar. Sent by his father to St. Petersburg to take up military service in 1838, young Nekrasov, against the will of his parent, got a job at the university. The enraged father abruptly broke up with his son, and the young man found himself left to his own devices in St. Petersburg. The need was hopeless.

Much later, the poet himself spoke about the beginning of his life in St. Petersburg and about the appearance of his first book, “Dreams and Sounds,” in 1840:

“I was preparing for university, I was starving, I prepared nine boys for military schools in all Russian subjects. This place was brought to me by Grigory Frantsevich Benetsky, he was then a mentor and observer in the Corps of Pages and something in the Noble Regiment. He was an excellent person One day he told me: “Print your poems, I’ll sell you 500 rubles worth of tickets.” I began to print the book “Dreams and Sounds.” Then I became thoughtful, I wanted to tear it up, but Benetsky had already sold up to a hundred tickets to the cadets and I spent the money. How can I be here!... Lost in thought, I went with my book to V. A. Zhukovsky. A gray-haired, bent old man received me, took the book and told me to come in a few days. I came, he read some of my plays praised, but said:

You will regret it later if you give away this book.

But I can’t help but give it away (and I explained why). Zhukovsky gave me advice: remove your name from the book. "Dreams and Sounds" was published under the two letters "N.N." I was scolded in some newspaper, I wrote an answer, it was the only time in my life that I stood up for myself and my work. The answer was stupid, stupider than the book itself.

All this happened in 1940. Belinsky also cursed my book" 3.

It was the review of Belinsky, who spoke extremely harshly about “Dreams and Sounds,” that especially affected Nekrasov. Could Belinsky have thought then that the unknown “N.N.” in a few years will become his friend, colleague and editor of Sovremennik?

However, Belinsky’s review of “Dreams and Sounds” was not unfair. The first experiments of the young Nekrasov did not even remotely resemble what later came from his pen. “Dreams and Sounds” published poems of an obviously imitative nature with various “terrible” titles like “Evil Spirit”, “Angel of Death” and so on 4 .

In another of his autobiographical sketches, made for the editor of “Russian Antiquity” M.I. Semevsky, Nekrasov tells the further fate of his first book:

“I gave out a book on consignment; I came to the store a week later - not a single copy was sold, after another - the same, two months later - the same. In grief, I took all the copies and destroyed most of them. I refused to write lyrical and generally tender works in verse" 5 .

From this we see that Nekrasov’s first book played a significant role in shaping the future work of the democratic poet. As he himself wrote, “this was the best lesson.”

Subsequently, Nekrasov did not include a single poem from the book “Dreams and Sounds” in his collected works. Nevertheless, the historical and literary significance of his first youth book is great. She is an important stage in the biography of the “singer of the people’s grief.”

It is not surprising that this book has long been considered a rarity. Of course, several more copies survived from destruction than Gogol's Hanz Küchelgarten, but still, the day when I managed to find a wonderful, covered volume of these poems in Yaroslavl, I considered it a holiday.

I have another book, the fate of which is the same as the fate of Gogol’s “Hanz Küchelgarten” and Nekrasov’s book “Dreams and Sounds”. It was published in 1817 in Moscow and is called “First Experiments in Prose and Poetry.” The author of this work did not hide his name, and on the output sheet it appears: “I. Lazhechnikov” 6 .

The name of Ivan Ivanovich Lazhechnikov in Russian literature is always placed next to the name of M. N. Zagoskin, to whom belongs the fame of the first Russian historical novelist.

Of course, Zagoskin’s novels “Yuri Miloslavsky”, “Roslavlev”, “Askold’s Grave” are more significant than Lazhechnikov’s “The Last Novik” or “The Ice House”, but nevertheless the works of I. I. Lazhechnikov have a prominent place in the origin and development of the Russian historical novel.

Belinsky in " Literary dreams"wrote about The Last Novik that this is an extraordinary work, marked by the stamp of high talent."

Lazhechnikov began writing and publishing extremely early, almost at the age of fifteen. While still an officer, he collected his immature works scattered across various magazines and published them in a separate book, which is discussed here.

During these years, he imitated Karamzin or, as he himself writes in his autobiography, was, “unfortunately, carried away by the sentimental direction of the then literature, of which tempting examples are visible in “Poor Liza” and “Natalia, the Boyar’s Daughter.”

His similar works, published in various magazines, obviously did not make a negative impression, but, being collected in one book, they shocked the author himself with their imperfection, who, in his own words, “having seen them in print and being ashamed of them, soon hastened to destroy everything.” copies of this publication" 7.

Thus, his “First Experiments in Prose and Poetry” perished at the hands of Lazhechnikov himself.

The remaining copies of this book, apparently in very small quantities, have become extremely rare. Their rarity is aggravated by the fact that these books did not go on sale at all. The author destroyed them at home as soon as he received them from the printing house.

We have reviewed three books by writers who, not being satisfied with their first experiments, themselves mercilessly destroyed them.

I have not specifically studied this issue, but I think that the list of such books could be continued.

However, there are no such books in my library anymore and, therefore, it is difficult for me to talk about them.

But there are books that are predominantly also the first separate publications of the works of writers who, if they did not destroy them, did not love them, did not contribute to their preservation, and sometimes simply abandoned them, hiding their authorship.

There are several such books in my collection.

Here, for example, are two modest brochures, on the covers of which only one word is printed: “Parasha” on the first and “Conversation” on the second.

There is a little more information on the title page. We learn that “Parasha” is a “story in verse”, the work of “T.L.”, printed in St. Petersburg in the printing house E. Praca in 1843.

There is even more information on the title page of the second brochure. We learn that "Conversation" is a poem written by Eve. Turgenev" ("T.L."). The brochure was also printed in St. Petersburg already in 1845 8.

Of course, it is not news that both of these brochures were written by Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev. The initials "T. L." designated: "Turgenev-Lutovinov". Ivan Sergeevich began his literary activity as a poet. In addition to several poems and poems published in magazines and collections, “Parasha” and “Conversation” were published by him as separate brochures, which are now the subject of our attention.

Both of these works are wonderfully written. Belinsky greeted “Parasha” with a long article, in which he said that he saw the poem as “not only written in beautiful poetic verses, but also imbued with a deep idea, full of inner content, distinguished by humor and irony” 9. Belinsky responded no less favorably to “The Conversation.”

And yet, Turgenev not only did not include these poetic debuts of his in subsequent collected works, but in letters to friends he said: “I feel a positive, almost physical antipathy towards my poems and not only do I not have a single copy of my poems, but dearly I would give it to them not to exist in the world at all" 10.

This is how the author himself reacted to his first books. Not supported by subsequent reprints and reminders of them, both of these Turgenev brochures quickly disappeared from the book market. The writer’s name in those years had not yet made headlines, so there were few collectors who sought to keep these inconspicuous-looking brochures on their shelves. "Parasha" and "Conversation" have become very rare books. I barely managed to find them.

The first youth collection of poems by Afanasy Afanasyevich Fet (Shenshin), who occupies a significant place in the history of Russian poetry, became the same rare book. In a famous letter to N.A. Nekrasov, N.G. Chernyshevsky wrote about him that Fet “however, good poet" 11 .

Fet began writing poetry very early, and his first book, entitled “Lyrical Pantheon,” was published in 1840 in Moscow on the twentieth anniversary of the author’s birth. The name Fet on it was hidden under the initials “A.F.” 12 .

Fet himself talks about this book like this: “You never know what 19-year-old boys dream about! By the way, I was sure that if I had the opportunity to publish my first collection of poems, which I called “The Lyrical Pantheon,” I would immediately gain great fame, and the money spent on the publication will immediately return a hundredfold. Sharing this conviction, B. (the girl whom the young man Fet considered his bride. - N.S.-S.) When I left for Moscow, she gave me 300 rubles in banknotes from her meager savings for a publication that, in our opinion, should strengthen our independent future.”

Further, Fet says that he “... carefully saved the money borrowed for the publication, and by the end of the year he obtained his “Lyrical Pantheon” from Selivanovsky’s rather faulty printing house, which, Fet continues, “... when it appeared, it partially achieved its goal . Giving me the pleasure of seeing myself in print, and Baron Brambeus bared his teeth at the newcomer, this collection earned an approving review from Otechestvennye Zapiski. Of course, the small money spent on this publication disappeared without a trace." 13

Of course, not only the money disappeared, but the publication itself, bearing such a loud name: “Lyrical Pantheon,” completely disappeared. The poems published in this collection were immature, imitative and in no way foreshadowed the poetic gift that came to the author later.

Apparently, the poet himself understood this, since in his next collection of poems, published ten years later, in 1850, he placed only four poems from the Lyric Pantheon, and even later - in a book of poems (edited by I. S. Turgenev) 1856 - only one.

The sympathetic review of "Notes of the Fatherland" did not turn the poet's head. “The Lyrical Pantheon,” of course, had no demand and was only diligently distributed by the author among friends. And my acquaintances, obviously, were not at all diligent in keeping this gift on their shelves. So the book has become a rarity.

Once upon a time, in the Writers' Shop, David Samoilovich Aizenstadt, an old and intelligent scribe, arranged for me a complete collection of Fet's first editions. This (with translations) is more than twenty volumes. The collection was unique: all in the same luxurious bindings, it previously belonged to Fet’s relatives - the Botkins, famous pre-revolutionary tea traders, to the daughter of one of whom Fet was married. Many volumes of this collection bore Fet's dedicatory inscriptions. The collection was exhaustive in its completeness, but the Lyrical Pantheon was missing.

To my question: did the Botkins really not have a “Lyrical Pantheon”, David Samoilovich looked cha me through the monstrously thick glasses and answered condemningly:

And it couldn’t be, dear comrade. Afanasy Afanasyevich Fet in his mature years immediately destroyed this book as soon as it came across his path...

Unfortunately, I did not find documentary evidence of Eisenstadt’s words, but I am ready to believe: he knew a great many details about the books.

Later, I finally got myself the Lyrical Pantheon. It was given to me by one ardent admirer of poetry, who despises everything that is not written in poetry.

I am not one of those fans, but the first book of a poet is always the first book, and is especially interesting for collectors.

Fet himself wrote this about his “Lyrical Pantheon”, associated with his first youthful love: “After all, this incredible and, due to mental weakness, pitiful episode can only be understood if one is convinced of the primacy of the will over the mind. A garden, brought to full bloom in an unusually early spring, will not argue that the blush appearing on its white fragrant flowers, completely untimely, since in two or three days everything will be killed by the inexorable frost" 14.

The last book I have in this curious section of the library is “The Ghoul,” an essay by Krasnorogsky. The book was printed in St. Petersburg at Fischer's printing house in 1841. The frontispiece and cover feature a charming picture carved on wood in Paris.

Krasnorogsky is Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, a famous Russian poet, who named himself that way in the first book he published after his birthplace in Krasny Rog.

AK Tolstoy was then twenty-three years old, and all science fiction made an irresistible impression on him. "The Ghoul" is a prosaic long story, filled with all sorts of devilry, quite funny in content.

B. Markevich, who published Tolstoy’s unpublished youth story “The Family of the Ghoul” in the “Russian Bulletin” in the eighties, wrote that “in those same young years, it was published by him (A.K. Tolstoy) in Russian, in a small number of copies and without the name of the author, a similar story from the field of vampirism, entitled “The Ghoul,” which is now the greatest bibliographic rarity” 16.

That, in fact, is the whole story of this book. It remains to add that A.K. Tolstoy himself did not attach any importance to this early book of his and did not reprint it until the end of his life. This work was published a second time only in 1900, reprinted by Vl. Solovyov, who also noted the rarity of the first edition of The Ghoul.

However, this book was in its time; V. G. Belinsky did not miss it. Knowing nothing about the author, he, with brilliant insight, not only greeted her warmly, but also predicted that the author would occupy a prominent place in Russian literature. Through his youthful immaturity, he saw “in everything the imprint of a firm, literary hand” and found in the author “decisive talent” 17.

In the same review, Belinsky expresses thoughts with which we can safely conclude the review of the fate of some early books by Russian writers. Belinsky writes that youth “is the most seductive and most inconvenient time for authorship: there is no end to activity, but all the works of this fertile era in a more mature period of life are consigned to the fire, as a cleansing sacrifice for the sins of youth.”

“The only exception remains for geniuses,” Belinsky further writes, recalling, however, that “... even the early works of geniuses are sharply separated from the creations of a more mature age...”

How true all this is! And how I would like to once again marvel at the courage and determination of Russian writers, who did not think about consigning their own books to fire or oblivion if, in their opinion, they turned out to be unworthy of remaining in memory.

Here we cannot even refer to the fact that this was done only under the influence of unfavorable criticism. In addition to scathing articles, there was also a very sympathetic review of Gogol’s “Hanz Küchelgarten” by O. M. Somov in “Northern Flowers” ​​for 1830. Somov wrote that “in the writer one can see a talent that ensures a future poet in him.” Gogol, if he wanted, could have believed him, but he didn’t believe him! The poet's path did not become his path.

Zhukovsky did not like everything in Nekrasov’s “Dreams and Sounds”; there were no printed reviews of Lazhechnikov’s book at all; Turgenev’s “Parash” and “Conversation”, as well as Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy’s “Ghoul”, Belinsky, on the contrary, praised. In addition to the negative one, a sympathetic article appeared about Fet’s “Lyrical Pantheon”.

It’s clear that it’s not just about reviews! The issue is the writers' personal understanding of the quality of their work. High demands on oneself and on one's works have always been a remarkable feature of Russian writers.

The books I have tried to talk about here provide wonderful confirmation of this.

The book "The Ghoul" by Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy was given to me by another Tolstoy - Alexey Nikolaevich. I think it is appropriate to talk about this here.

My friend, director David Gutman, introduced me to Tolstoy. It was in 1925 in the “Aquarium”, where performances of the Satire Theater were staged, presenting a vicious parody of the play “The Conspiracy of the Empress” by A. N. Tolstoy and P. E. Shchegolev. Suffice it to say that the parody was called “Oh, no moves, Gritsyu, on the empress’s plot.” My wife, an artist of this theater S.P. Bliznikovskaya, portrayed Vyrubova, by the way, also very funny.

Despite the fact that Tolstoy himself and his co-author Shchegolev laughed the loudest throughout the performance, they came backstage to meet the actors a little angry. David Gutman introduced me to Tolstoy as a scribe, and I, sincerely admiring the impressive figure of Alexei Nikolaevich, could not find anything smarter than to tell him:

“I dream, Alexey Nikolaevich, about your book with an autograph...”

Tolstoy looked at me and, after a pause, barked loudly, so that everyone could hear:

Definitely! For the next meeting, young man, buy my “Prince Silver” at the auction - I’ll sign it!

And shaking from the attack on this time with sincere laughter (and how he laughed!), he slapped me on the shoulder and said:

It's a shame? Do you think I’m not offended? The whole evening you, gentlemen of the satirists, were disgusting and who? The author of "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich"!

He himself was always amused by the fact that he was Tolstoy and also Alexei. In his jokes, however, he did not forget Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Somehow, later, in the last war winter, we spent a long time visiting the poet Nikolai Aseev. We walked home together after 12 o'clock at night. The patrols had already somewhat weakened their activity, but they were still there, and we, on the contrary, did not have night passes. We had to show our passports to every patrol that stopped us on the streets, and I had to prove for a long time that, they say, I am such and such an artist, and this is a writer - Tolstoy. Tolstoy always added the same words: “Author of War and Peace.”

The patrollers, knowing Alexei Nikolaevich well, invariably raised their hand to the visor and, smiling, immediately let us through. This amused Tolstoy to the extreme. However, everything in the world amused him. I have never seen such an abundance of cheerfulness in anyone else. He simply loved to laugh.

I once told him:

Yesterday I was at the exhibition of Soviet graphic artists and for some reason I didn’t see your works, Alexey Nikolaevich...

What do I have to do with graphs?

Well, Alexey Nikolaevich, you are a former count, that is, a graphic designer, and now our Soviet graphic designer...

Tolstoy laughed until he cried at this simple joke.

How stupid! - he exclaimed. - How divinely stupid! It’s impossible to imagine this - it’s an overshadowing from above!

And how unrecognizable this cheerful man became when he got to the shelves with books.

I then lived in the Music Hall, in a hostel for artists. I was given a huge, dark room, which I filled with shelves of books. There were a lot of books - up to the ceiling.

On the contrary, there was no furniture. At the large table, instead of chairs, there were disused pieces of rows of theater seats, with reclining numbered seats.

Tolstoy liked it. When he arrived, he would take some old theater ticket out of his pocket and, as if checking the number, say to someone sitting:

Sorry, this seems to be my place...

He was, of course, primarily interested in books from the times of Peter I, of which I had quite a few. He treated them with some necessary greed and was ready to look at or talk about each book for hours. It was felt that he knew an enormous amount about them. And he didn’t just know - he lived in this time as he was. It seemed that if the door opened in front of him and Alexander Danilovich Menshikov himself walked in, no one would be surprised.

He told the story in a thousand details, calling everyone by name and patronymic, adding all the titles and positions, mentioning all the internal springs of events.

I watched as he once looked at my “Book of Mars” (a rare Peter’s edition of 1713, known in only a dozen copies - all different), and it seemed to me that he was not looking at the engravings illustrating Peter’s military victories, but as if he was looking out the window... Each engraving for him was not a flat frozen image, as it was for us - for him this image came to life, moved: guns fired, troops marched, ships sailed. It seemed to me that Alexei Nikolaevich sometimes simply winked at the portrait of Peter I, like a good old friend...

And there was also the feeling of some two Tolstoys. One is a merry fellow, a laugher, always ready to go on any funny adventure, a lover of chatting about trifles with the first person he meets. Another Tolstoy is a writer. Huge, thoughtful, jealously not letting anyone into his inner world.

Happy are the people who managed to get to know Tolstoy the writer better. It is impossible to forget such an Alexei Nikolaevich. This is a block of talent, knowledge, love for home country, to people and books.

He himself had a wonderful collection of old books. But he did not seem to be a greedy collector and could give any of them as a gift. I loved to look at someone's library, collection of paintings, engravings. For this he could be persuaded to go anywhere.

Once he liked my watercolor by the artist V. Sadovnikov, who depicted the view of old St. Petersburg. The watercolor was nothing special, but Tolstoy admired it for so long and noisily that I gave it to him.

About two months later (he rarely visited me) he brought me the book “The Ghoul” by Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy. I knew the rarity of the book, but it was a special, amateur copy. The same binding with “The Ghoul” contained all the works of this author that were not included in the collected works. There was “Popov’s Dream” (clipping from the magazine “Russian Antiquity”, 1882), “Russian History from Gostomysl” (also from “Russian Antiquity” of 1883 and in a separate Berlin edition of 1884) and, finally, “The Family of the Ghoul” - excerpt from "Russian Messenger".

Of course, I was very happy with the gift. Alexey Nikolaevich grabbed a pencil to inscribe the book, but I, knowing that the inscription would certainly be humorous and would certainly refer to the same surnames, resisted.

No, no, Alexey Nikolaevich! The inscription should be on the book of another Tolstoy, now living

I handed him the first volume of his complete collection own compositions in the publication "Nedra".

What to write? - asked Alexey Nikolaevich.

Anything - just without my last name. I need your autograph, not a certificate of acquaintance with Tolstoy...

Do you want to show off your taste? - Alexey Nikolaevich growled and wrote on the portrait:

"I looked at the amazing collections and admired them. Alexey Tolstoy."

That's all. If you remove the word “amazing” from this phrase, the rest of it is the absolute truth. Both gifts from the wonderful artist of words still give me sincere pleasure.

Notes

1 Hanz Küchelgarten, idyll in pictures. Op. V. Alova (Written in 1827). St. Petersburg, printed in the printing house of the widow Plushar, 1829. 4 non-numerical, 71 p. 12®.

Ostroglazov has four copies: 1) Pogodinsky, sent by the author with the anonymous inscription “M.P. Pogodin from the publisher”; this copy ended up in Ostroglazov’s library; 2) also presented incognito, by the author to P. A. Pletnev; 3) copy of N. S. Tikhonravov; 4) a copy of P. V. Shchapov (Shchapov’s library entered the Historical Museum).

2 Quoted from the comments to the 1st volume, Complete. collection op. N.V. Gogol. M., 1940, p. 493. There are also a number of other details.

3 See: "Literary inheritance", vol. 49-50, p. 148. See also: Skabichevsky A.M. Works. T: 2. St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 343.

4 Dreams and sounds. Poems by N. N. St. Petersburg, in type. Egor Alipanov, 1840, Cap. l.,. 2 non-numerical, 103 p. 8®.

5 "Literary inheritance", vol. 49-50, p. 162.

6 First experiments in prose and poetry by I. Lazhechnikov. M., in University type., 1817. 160 p. 8®.

7 Skabichevsky A.M. Soch., vol. 2. St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 721; "Russian art sheet" by V. Timm, 1858, No. 7.

8 Parasha. A story in verse by T. L. Written at the beginning of 1843. St. Petersburg, in type. E. Praca, 1843. 46 p. 8®. Talk. Poem by Iv. Turgeneva (T. L.). St. Petersburg, in type. E. Praca, 1845. 39 p. 8®.

9 Belinsky V. G. Complete. collection soch., t. 7. M., 1955, p. 66.

10 Quoted from an article by S. Vengerov in the Brockhaus Encyclopedic Dictionary, half volume 67.

11 See: History of Russian literature, vol. 8, part 2, M., 1956, p. 251 - footnote.

12 Lyrical pantheon. A.F.M., in type. S. Selivanovsky, 1840, 120, 2 nonnum. With. 8®.

13 Fet A. Early years of my life. M., 1893, p. 169, 174 and 180.

14 Ibid., p. 170.

15 Ghoul. Essay by Krasnogorsky. (St. Petersburg), in the privileged printing house of Fisher, 1841. Cap. l., engrav. frontispiece on the tree, 177 pp. 8®.

16 "Russian Bulletin", 1883: "The Family of the Ghoul." Unpublished story by A.K. Tolstoy. Publication by B. Markevich.

1 7 Belinsky V. G. Complete. collection soch., vol. 5. M., 1954, p. 474.

Letters to Nekrasov

F. M. Tolstoy and his letters to Nekrasov

Article and publication by Korney Chukovsky Feofil (or Teofil) Matveevich _T_o_l_s_t_o_y_ (1807-1881) moved in high society from a young age. There he was highly regarded as a singer, composer, actor and storyteller 1 . In memoirs and letters dating back to the 20s and 30s, we quite often see such references to him: “He has a very pleasant gift! - he has so much soul in singing, an excellent musician,” Anna Sheremeteva wrote about him 2 . “He has a wonderful talent, and he composed very good things!” - the famous postal director A. Ya. Bulgakov reported about him 3. “My singing was then an inevitable fashionable accessory,” he later recalled in one of his memoirs 4 . He then belonged to a small circle of Glinka’s secular acquaintances. Glinka, recalling those years, wrote about Theophilus Tolstoy that his voice was “cute” and that he “sang extremely sweetly as a tenor” 5 . Theophilus Tolstoy was a very prolific composer. From 1827 to 1838, he wrote, by his own count, up to 280 different romances 6 . In the aristocratic houses of St. Petersburg, he was considered one of their own, for he came from an old, noble family (the grandson of M.I. Kutuzov), was brought up in the page corps and had numerous relatives in the court and high society environment. "His sister is Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna's maid of honor," the same Bulgakov writes about him. "His brother Ivan Matveevich," recalls the composer Yu. Arnold, "was one of the favorites of the Emperor." And he himself, according to Arnold, - “turned out to be one of the few who had the good fortune to be invited to the parties of the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna.” 7 In a word, nobility, talent and court connections - everything was at the service of Theophilus Tolstoy. In those days it was hardly possible to doubt that he was without special effort will make a great career - especially since ambition (or rather, vanity) was characteristic of him on an enormous scale. It was not for nothing that he chose the pseudonym “Rostislav”, that is, as he himself explained: “grow, glory!” It is not for nothing that later, in the 50s, his literary enemies even in the press called him a “fame seeker” 8. In addition to romances, operas, cantatas, oratorios, he wrote stories, novels, dramas, feuilletons, critical articles, and comedies - and, judging by the journalism of the 50s and 60s, in the end he managed to achieve some popularity. His name constantly appears in newspaper and magazine articles of that time. And if you turn to the correspondence of his contemporaries, you can find his name in the letters of Glinka, and in the letters of Nekrasov, Goncharov, Leskov, Annenkov, A.K. Tolstoy, Balakirev, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Caesar Cui, Dargomyzhsky. Nekrasov in his satire “Newspaper” (1865) names his name as a well-known name, among other popular names: ... Even a select circle Recently, Count Tolstoy, Fet and simply Tolstoy were captivated by their talent. At that time, no comments were required to explain to the reader what kind of “just Tolstoy” he was. Everyone knew that this was “Rostislav Feofilych,” as the elderly Baron Brambeus called him in one of his feuilletons... 9 V.V. Stasov wrote about him in a later article: “Nowadays completely forgotten, but in the 40s x - 50s, a very famous music critic..." 10 But his fame was unenviable. Studying the letters and memoirs of his contemporaries, we soon come across one circumstance that seems surprising to us - at least at first: for some reason, all these people whom we have just listed speak about him in a semi-contemptuous or outright mocking tone, as if we were talking about a person who cannot be respected. For some reason, each of them turns his very name Theophilus into a familiarly offensive nickname, and, no matter how diverse these nicknames are, they unanimously testify to the general disrespect for him. So, Vladimir Stasov calls him Fifia 11 in his correspondence. Mussorgsky calls him either Fifila or Fif 12. Borodin gives him the same nicknames 13. Baron Rosen calls him Filka 14. Serov, following the example of Senkovsky, calls him Feofilych in his magazine, and even to add insult to injury he makes his name a common noun, pointing out, for example, that foreign musical circles also have their own “feofilychs” 15. In the literary community close to Nekrasov, it is customary to call him Feofilka 16. It seems that even Thaddeus Bulgarin was not awarded so many contemptuous nicknames in his entire life. Even his loud and pompous pseudonym _R_o_s_t_i_s_l_a_v_ was changed in the most offensive way. According to N.S. Leskov, a certain Prince B., having met Rostislav, turned to him with a friendly reproach, without any desire to offend him: “And what, tell me, do you want to sign your articles _B_r_a_n_d_y_kh_l_y_s_t?” 17 It takes a lot of disrespect for a person to assume that he can appropriate such a clownish nickname for himself. He was mocked not only in articles, conversations and letters. Mussorgsky branded him in music, bringing him out in his famous "Rike". “It’s so hilarious,” wrote V.V. Stasov about the cartoon of the great master, “that every time we just held our stomachs, rolling with laughter... The funniest thing is Fif-Rostislav, who sings incredible nonsense on the theme of the most vulgar waltz ... It turns out to be a magnificent caricature" 18. This caricature defames F. Tolstoy mainly as a music critic, because as a singer and as a composer, he managed to suffer a complete fiasco much earlier. Glinka in one of his letters called his works “gimp” 19. His opera “Il Birichino di Parigi” failed after the first stage production, and his romances, which were so highly valued in the 30s Winter Palace and in the aristocratic salons of both capitals, after a few years they were neglected and forgotten by everyone. Count M.D. Buturlin in his “Notes” reports about the “music lover” Theophilus Tolstoy that by 1845 he “left the cobbling together of his former Russian romance writers (to tell the truth, not particularly talented ones)” 20 . It turned out that his music, well suited for intimate evenings with Princess Golitsyna, Countess Kleinmichel, and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, had no significance outside this circle. Already in 1852, he wrote elegiacally about himself: “I am a person who succeeds in little or nothing at all. For several years I was a musician, wrote and published more than one hundred and fifty romances, of which no more than a dozen were accepted under the patronage of the most respectable public... The rest<...>consigned to eternal oblivion... What was to be done? Where to go?" It was then that he decided to devote himself to writing: he became a fiction writer, publicist and critic. In this field, he worked diligently for almost forty years, but even here he did not achieve even a small fraction of the respect that, it would seem, befitted him as a literary worker: and so he remained until the end of his days as Theophilus. Soon, thanks to his connections, he procured for himself (already with the rank of chamberlain) a high appointment in the censorship department: he became a member of the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs and demonstrated in this region, equally tireless activity; however, here, as we will see below, he suffered a decisive failure and was dismissed, not without disgrace. In one of his letters, I. A. Goncharov, speaking about mediocre amateurs, added that they were all “perishing.” in the abyss... unless they push through, like Theophilus Tolstoy; he is both a composer and a novelist, a perky self-lover, but in essence a nonentity, who knows how to achieve only the sad fame of an exemplary loser through his patronage." 21 Goncharov was a long-time acquaintance and colleague of Theophilus Tolstoy, and his review fully expresses the opinion that has firmly formed about Theophilus Tolstoy in the literary and musical circles of that time.

This harsh opinion does not seem entirely objective to us. The failures of Theophilus Tolstoy cannot be explained by mediocrity. Anyone who reads at least two volumes of his Works, published in the mid-60s, will have to come to the conclusion that he was a completely professional writer who was quite skillful with his pen. His talent was almost imperceptible, but he was no worse than other mediocre fiction writers, and the contemptuous attitude towards him that we just talked about is not explained by the poverty of his talents, but by one feature of his mental make-up. This feature was inherent not only to him, but also to many of his contemporaries who belonged to the same social formation. Only in him is it expressed most clearly and is, so to speak, main basis his behavior. It is necessary to get acquainted with this typical feature of his personality, since without it neither his peculiar relationship with Nekrasov, which is the topic of this article, nor the strange role that he played in the censorship history of Russian advanced journalism of the 60s is incomprehensible. This quality of Theophilus Tolstoy was most clearly reflected in his extraordinary act with his namesake, the poet Alexei Tolstoy. In 1868, Alexei Tolstoy completed his famous tragedy "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich." Theophilus Tolstoy liked the tragedy. He read it in manuscript and expressed his admiration for the author. In general, he was enthusiastic about his dramaturgy, which is clear from the following verses of Alexei Tolstoy: In your letter, O Theophilus, (I am even ashamed before the world), You compared me, a prankster, Almost to the royal Shakespeare 22 . Alexei Tolstoy, naturally, wanted to see his play on stage. He submitted "Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich" to the censorship. It seemed that the play was lucky: at the meeting where its discussion took place, its ardent admirer, Feofil Matveevich Tolstoy, presided. As chairman, he had two votes, but, to the great amazement of the author, he cast both votes in favor of the play and ardently insisted on its ban, arguing that it undermined the prestige of monarchical power! The play was banned. The angry author ridiculed Theophilus Tolstoy in poisonous verses, of which we know only two lines: Oh, if you were less vociferous, But you would agree with yourself more. Here the very essence of Theophilus Tolstoy’s mental makeup is expressed: he, indeed, almost never agreed with himself, with his own opinion. In his justification, he wrote a long letter to the playwright, where he explained to him that as a writer he, Theophilus Tolstoy, was delighted with his wonderful play, but as a censor he considered himself forced to ban it. Alexei Tolstoy answered him with good-natured contempt: Like a state eagle, You are only two-headed, and not two-faced 23 . Such duality of opinions and feelings was characteristic of Theophilus Tolstoy throughout his literary work. On the one hand, he was an obscurantist, a guardian serfdom . Thaddeus Bulgarin introduced him to literature, and for a long time he was an employee of Bulgarin's Northern Bee 24. In this semi-official newspaper, he published, among other things, his pathetic lament over the tomb of Nicholas I, where, at the very height of the Sevastopol disaster, he wrote that this “child-loving monarch raised Russia to the highest degree of glory and prosperity”, that he was “the illustrious successor of Peter” and what, “if, appealing to Russia, we ask: did the deceased sovereign love his subjects? - all of Russia will merge into one enthusiastic, grateful, affirmative cry” 25. As a Bulgarin publicist and critic, he at one time persecuted the works of writers of the natural school - Nekrasov, Turgenev for their “common” themes. Analyzing Glinka’s opera about Ivan Susanin, he especially praised it for the fact that in it Susanin does not speak peasant language: “Fortunately, at the time when M.I. Glinka wrote his marvelous opera, the teaching of realists was not yet in great course, but what the hell, they would have persuaded him to force Susanin to express himself like a peasant and say: “tapericha”, “entogo”, “he’s a rabid man.” 26 Encountering village speech in stories and poems, Feofil Tolstoy in his articles called her "peasant", "coachman" and "tavern" and demanded that contemporary fiction portray only "high society" - or, as he put it, the society of "decent people." Soon after Alexandra Osipovna Smirnova was introduced into Pisemsky’s living room, and Pisemsky, who artistically reproduced peasant speech, began to read his folk essays from her, and, according to Annenkov’s story, an indignant Rostislav appeared to her and began to reprimand her that she had introduced Pisemsky “into good society.” “And that she condones debauchery in literature, for which Pisemsky is already given 120 silver rubles per sheet. It's horrible! And what are the authorities looking at!" When the 60s arrived, Feofil Tolstoy in the same "Northern Bee" began to fight the "nihilists." In 1863, when Chernyshevsky was a prisoner of the Peter and Paul Fortress, Rostislav spoke out against his newly published novel “What to do?”, declaring that this work is immoral, “ugly both in thought and in execution” and that there is no such “decent woman” who would dare to read this novel, for its author, according to Rostislav, “introduces readers into environment of drunken women, street sluts and all the scum of the human race" and "with visible pleasure plunges into disgusting dirt." This obscurantist insinuation ended in true Bulgarin style - with a calculation of the fee that was paid by Nekrasov to the author of the novel "What is to be done? " 27. At the same time, Theophilus Tolstoy wrote and tried to stage an equally slanderous play, “Nihilists in Home Life (from Mr. Chernyshevsky’s novel “What to Do?”).” In this libel, he portrayed the nihilists as such monsters that even the tsarist censorship (fearing a scandal) banned its production 28. Of course, Nekrasov’s Sovremennik could not help but give a severe rebuff to the numerous anti-nihilistic antics of Theophilus Tolstoy. At the beginning of the same 1863, in the first book of the magazine, an article by Shchedrin appeared (signed N. Gurin) , where a certain “amiable old man” was brought out, in whom it is not difficult to recognize “Theofilka”, for, according to Shchedrin, this “amiable old man” once wrote in the “Northern Bee” and recently sent it to another newspaper (of the same direction as Bulgarin organ) an article entitled “Something about the nihilists or a new trick of our agitators.” Shchedrin’s article was called “Moscow Letters.” It was a review of a play by Theophilus Tolstoy, which was shown at the Maly Theater. Shchedrin's commentators did not note that in the preface to this review, where it seems to be talking about another person, Shchedrin exposes and castigates the same Theophilus Tolstoy as an insignificant bureaucrat-bureaucrat who does not have the slightest right to be called a writer. Even Shchedrin was not always able to defame his enemies with such crushing force 29 . Nekrasov published Shchedrin's article in Sovremennik without any reservations or mitigations. There is no doubt that he was in complete agreement with her. What could Nekrasov have in common with this publicist of the Bulgarin school? But then the greatest strangeness was revealed: it turned out that Theophilus Tolstoy was drawn to this hostile camp all his life, that he tried in every possible way to get along with both Saltykov-Shchedrin and Nekrasov, wrote them long letters, where he often expressed feelings of “love” and “ affection." On the same day when Shchedrin’s murderous article for Feofil Tolstoy appeared in Nekrasov’s Sovremennik, he wrote a long letter to Nekrasov, where, among bitter reproaches and complaints, he did not fail to report that although Nekrasov’s magazine scolded him, he still, in spite of everything, he loves Nekrasov’s poetry; that it is “regrettable for him to see persistent ill will” on the part of a person to whose works he, Theophilus Tolstoy, “has no interest.” “The most precious of modern poets for the Russian heart,” was his address to Nekrasov in one of his letters in 1869. And then he expressed delight at the “wonderful pictures” of nature in Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'.” Sometimes his delight was poured out in poetry: after reading the newly published “Grandfather Mazai and the Hares,” in one of his letters he addressed Nekrasov with the following verses: Your bunnies, Nekrasov, are better than tasty snipes; Reading them, I was touched - And even, horror! teared up! He had the same feelings towards Shchedrin. At least after Shchedrin spoke of him in Sovremennik with such devastating contempt, Feofil Tolstoy wrote to Nekrasov about the great satirist: “the famous founder of incriminating literature is a witty publicist; his word cuts through the veils of public life, like a diamond cuts glass "The types he deduces are correctly captured and mercilessly exposed to shame in all their nakedness and in all their ugliness." And then he compared Shchedrin with Michel Angelo. Of course, Shchedrin and Nekrasov were not at all seduced by his praises. For Shchedrin, he remained “Feofilka” until the end of his days, and Nekrasov, as can be seen from the published letters, did not even always answer his annoying letters and rarely allowed him to visit him. “I visited you three times,” we read in one of Feofil Tolstoy’s letters to Nekrasov, “and each time I asked you to tell you that it would be very desirable to see Vamp. But alas! This influential censorship official, chamberlain of His Majesty's court, understood very well that Nekrasov was his political enemy. “You,” he wrote to Nekrasov, “are the complete ruler of the democratic kingdom called “Notes of the Fatherland”.” He knew that there was and could not be a place for him in this “democratic kingdom”. And yet he was ready to endure any insults, just to receive the honor of being published in Nekrasov’s magazine. For the sake of this honor, he did not disdain anything, and he himself, without hesitation, talked about the unseemly ways by which he managed to squeeze his works into Sovremennik. Back in the early 50s, one of his stories was accepted into the magazine by the weak-willed I. I. Panaev. But the story was so alien to the direction of the magazine that the editors (obviously represented by Nekrasov) refused to print its ending. Then Feofil Tolstoy turned with a complaint to the authorities, to the trustee of the educational district, Musin-Pushkin, who headed the censorship, and he, according to Feofil Tolstoy, made the following suggestion to Panaev: “For once, a story appeared in your magazine, written by _p_o_r_ya_d_o_ch_n_y_m_ _ch_e_l_o_v_e_k_o_m, in which there are no men, no taverns. All _p_o_r_ya_d_o_ch_n_y_e_ _l_yu_d_i, and even ladies read it with pleasure, and you stop it in fact interesting place . So that a continuation would be published in the next book!" 30 After such a "reprimand," as F. M. Tolstoy puts it, Panaev, of course, had to submit. "A White Glove Tale from High Society Life" was published with the help of administrative influences on the pages of an advanced magazine, in contrast to the "peasant" poems of Nekrasov, Turgenev's "Notes of a Hunter", the stories and tales of Grigorovich. And F. Tolstoy, as we will see below, imposed his other works on Nekrasov's journals with similar administrative measures, using for this both his official position and his bureaucratic connections. But, one wonders, why did he, this inveterate enemy of the “nihilists,” the literary godson of Thaddeus Bulgarin, who considered “decent people” mainly “the impersonal bastard of the salons,” why did he so passionately want to participate in those revolutionary democratic bodies, where was he treated with such open contempt? Why did he so servilely curry favor with Shchedrin and Nekrasov? All this and much more is explained by the instability of his social position. Until the end of his life, he never found a place for himself in any of those social groups where he had to move. We must not forget that for all his nobility, he belonged to the number of impoverished nobles, who were becoming more and more numerous in the then Russian Empire every year. Apart from a government salary and a meager payment for newspaper articles, he essentially had nothing. If in his youth he had followed in the footsteps of his successful brother Ivan Matveyevich and chosen a palace career, his life would have turned out completely differently. Ivan Matveyevich, a zealous servant, eventually received from the emperors who were favorable to him both the title of count and the position of minister, and died in serene contentment. And Feofil Matveyevich was early seduced by another career - an influential representative of the press. He relied not so much on the favor of his salon friends, but on the “patronage of the most respectable public,” as he liked to express himself in his memoirs. And since the “most respectable public” did not value him too highly, he had to support his existence by doing petty literary work, which, of course, could not but humiliate him in the eyes of the feudal circle to which he belonged by birth. Even though his articles often reflected the tastes and views of this circle, the very fact that he wrote his articles as a guild journalist made him a renegade among the high-ranking nobility. The benevolent Prince B., who assigned the ridiculous pseudonym “Brandykhlyst” to Theophilus Tolstoy, clearly expressed the arrogant attitude towards him with which die-hard representatives of the high-ranking nobility should have treated his “free profession”. In the eyes of leading writers, he was a tsarist official, a guardian of the hated system, and in the eyes of courtiers and people of high society in general, he was a traitor to his class, a stranger. Hence the instability and contradictory duality of his social behavior. Hence his frequent betrayals of himself. That is why it could happen that as a censor he banned the very books that delighted him as a writer. That is why in his writings one can find so many contradictory statements about the same subject. It is not for nothing that A.S. Suvorin, in one of his feuilletons, proposed replacing the generally accepted saying “fickle as the wind” with the phrase: “fickle as Rostislav.”

The worst thing was that Theophilus Tolstoy did not want to come to terms with his restlessness, with the precariousness of his social position. He rushed between both camps, trying to please first one, then the other, and since he did not find recognition in either one or the other, he tried to improve matters in pitiful and obviously hopeless ways: in almost every article of his, on every random occasion, he loudly advertised himself. Having received, for example, a private letter from one of the prominent connoisseurs of music, full of kind compliments bought at the price of the most immoderate flattery, he did not think about publishing this private letter in its entirety in a brochure dedicated to the work of M. I. Glinka 31 . And the whole brochure is filled with such self-praise that, as the composer Serov pointed out in one of his reviews at that time, the author uses Glinka’s name only in order to “make people talk about himself, give himself a name,” and so on. “Notice,” continues Serov, “that Rostislav apologizes several times, that he is supposedly forced against his will to entertain the public with his personality, but<...>it is nothing more than a mask of modesty. From under this guise, the desire to talk about oneself is expressed too clearly<...> together with the name of M. I. Glinka, put up his pseudonym..." 32. Like any loser, he saw everywhere the evil machinations of enemies who, as if, were deliberately hushing up all his merits and merits. It was in contrast to these machinations that he exalted himself in his own newspaper and magazine articles, 33 and, although all these worries about fame led him to greater disgrace, he did not even consider it humiliating for himself to beg laudatory reviews from reviewers.When, for example, his drama “Stepson” was shown at the Maly Theater , he did not hesitate to turn to A.V. Druzhinin with a request to say a kind word about her in one of the newspaper articles. “It hurts,” he said in a letter, “that the works remain unnoticed by those people who could appreciate them.. . Meanwhile, the local gentlemen K. Ch.> not a gugu - as if it was none of their business." So, in his letters to Nekrasov, he is sometimes servile, sometimes impudent, sometimes playful and cheeky, sometimes official and prim. The instability of his opinions was so great that in 1859, succumbing to the powerful influence of the era, he darted sharply to the left and even wrote an oppositional novel (“Diseases of the Will”), in which he seemed to renounce his yesterday. Reading this novel, it was difficult to believe that it was written by the same pen that had been in the service of the reactionary camp for so many years. At the same time, he wrote the story “Olga”, where he criticized the morals of that high society, which he served for so many years. When these incriminating works were published as a separate edition (already at the end of 1866), to the surprise of many, they were sympathetically welcomed by D. I. Pisarev. In two books of the Delo magazine, Pisarev published a long article in which he bluntly stated that the works of Theophilus Tolstoy reflected both “honest, conscious love for people” and “a correct view of people’s relationships.” Pisarev reacted with particular sympathy to the story we were just talking about - because it clearly shows the depravity, stupidity, and vulgarity of the so-called golden youth. An even higher opinion was expressed by a critic about Theophilus Tolstoy’s novel “Diseases of the Will.” Such a novel, according to Pisarev, could only be written by a “gifted and thoughtful author,” for the novel strikes not at some random and easily eliminated details of the then system, but at its most important foundations, exposing to general shame the ineradicable falsity with which all relationships between people in a bourgeois-serf society. “Lies are ruining Russia! Lies have entangled all classes like a web!” - exclaims the hero of the novel, the truth-seeker Grigory Pronsky, a fanatical enemy of hypocrisy, who was convinced on his own skin that in the social conditions of that time it was impossible to live a single day without resorting to the most shameless lies. People put a brave champion of the truth behind bars in a madhouse, because not a single lover of truth has and cannot have a place in their hypocritical life. True, the author is trying to pass off this variation of Herzen’s “Doctor Krupov” as an innocent psychiatric essay that has nothing to do with politics, but Pisarev gives it his own interpretation and, in order to further emphasize the political orientation of the novel, resorts to the following hint: “If,” - he says, “Dobrolyubov himself read “Diseases of the Will,” then it could easily be that he would write one of his best critical articles about this novel.” And since Dobrolyubov, analyzing the works of this or that writer, used them to propagate his revolutionary ideas about the need to destroy the modern system, Pisarev’s instruction cannot but be understood in the sense that Theophilus Tolstoy’s novel would have given the great critic rich material for such propaganda. And when Pisarev, summing up his extensive article, concludes that this novel is “an intelligent and conscientiously thought-out work,” this means in his language that it contains a fairly strong protest against the reality of that time 35. “Illnesses of the will” made an impression of protest not only on D.I. Pisarev. Many years later, Vera Figner wrote in her autobiography that this novel played an important role in her revolutionary development 36 . Of course, both Vera Figner and Pisarev interpreted this work in their own way, introducing into it many feelings and thoughts that were absent in it. But still in the literary chronicle of the 60s there will remain that remarkable fact, that even the censor, even the guardian of the foundations of the feudal autocratic empire, under the powerful influence of the revolutionary situation of those years - albeit for a very short time - moved away from what he had served for so long, and declared himself an adherent of the very ideas that he pursued in throughout your entire life. It is characteristic that Pisarev’s article did not receive a response in the journalism of that time. Theophilus Tolstoy's reputation in literary circles was too unattractive. Having just been released from the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress, Pisarev might not have known all the details of his literary and service career. But in the eyes of reviewers and critics more closely familiar with the public face of Theophilus Tolstoy, this activity was so odious that even those works that were so sympathetically noted by Pisarev did not change the hostile attitude towards it in advanced journalism. According to the later testimony of Theophilus Tolstoy, “the press passed the story around in contemptuous silence, and when one of the young critics decided to speak favorably about it<...>, he was called a scoundrel, a traitor, and a bribed traitor." 37 This last statement, of course, is pure fantasy. Although literary influence Pisarev was already in decline at that time, but his moral authority still stood at such a height that even a laudatory article about Theophilus Tolstoy could not harm him. But there is also no doubt that readers who even remotely imagined the true biography of Theophilus Tolstoy could not agree with this article. While writing the article, Pisarev, of course, did not know that as a censor a year earlier, the author of “Pains of the Will” in an official paper declared him an extremely dangerous writer, in whose works one could not help but see harmful “socialist and communist tendencies.” This review refers to the 1st volume of the collected works of D.I. Pisarev. Chamberlain F, M. Tolstoy warned the censorship that “if in subsequent parts the author continues to carry out harmful teachings, then in total this will constitute sufficient material for the arrest of the book and for bringing the author to trial” 38 . One of the most characteristic features of the 60s was precisely the fact that, as guardians of prestige state power Such dualistic, unsteady, shaky people arose in great abundance. They could be found in all areas of government of that era. Losing its historical meaning every year, the police-autocratic regime attracted less and less impartial and devoted servants. A special breed of officials arose who zealously performed their official functions and at the same time were fully aware of the shame and senselessness of their behavior. In one of the then satires, Nekrasov noted that even those gendarmes and guards who burst into searches of other people’s apartments to arrest state criminals, in their frank conversations expressed sharply oppositional views. Nekrasov portrayed a young “administrator” (i.e., a gendarme), who, having appeared at night in the apartment of one writer, immediately began to flaunt his liberal views in front of him: Then the conversation began about how much is imperfect among us; how far away is that longed-for ideal that everyone would desire To my native land: there are no roads, There is fraud and stagnation in trade, With finances even a wolf howls, etc., etc., etc. This was a mass phenomenon at that time. According to Nekrasov, even after putting a person in prison, the jailer willingly started such oppositional speeches with the prisoner. The same writer, having already found himself in prison, speaks in Nekrasov's verses: Sometimes a guest appeared in my humble corner: a nightly brawl 39 Having accomplished, a guards officer, Kind, stately, young and liberal beyond measure, talked with me for two days. One will leave, another will come and weaves the same fables 40 ... Each of similar people their consciousness was in conflict with their actions. Even if their liberalism amounted to empty chatter, to “weaving fables,” they still no longer had the same integrity, since there was no firm confidence that they were serving a just cause. They had one opinion for their superiors, another for themselves. This double-mindedness even penetrated into the censorship department and, as we will see below, greatly hindered the government in its fight against the progressive press. The censorship figures of the previous reign - the Buturlins, Birukovs, Freigangs - hated what they were fighting against. And under Alexander II, a whole phalanx of such censors appeared who, figuratively speaking, worshiped what they burned, for many of them realized that, in essence, they were defending a regime doomed to destruction and unjust. This is very accurately formulated in one of the newest studies, which says about the autocracy of the 50s and 60s: “His state apparatus was not at that time an ideologically and organizationally integral instrument of power, it was not a completely faithful and reliable support for the throne, which served. Elements of discontent, criticism and skepticism, and next to this unprincipledness, deceit in front of superiors, a tendency to corruption of all kinds and forms existed in all links and layers of the tsarist bureaucracy, testifying already for this era to the far-advanced decomposition of the historically dying Russian absolutism" 41 . In a word, many of the tsarist officials in the state apparatus of Alexander II were, to a greater or lesser extent, “disagreeing with themselves,” and in their reports and statements they stated one thing, and in private conversations, another. Their closest ancestor was the censor A.V. Nikitenko, who, according to a contemporary, constantly repeated in conversations “the same complaints about his position, about the duality of this position,” about “the abnormality of the existing order of things and the obligation to serve this order.” About Nikitenko’s famous diary, the same memoirist notes that there were many such impudent statements that, as a censor, Nikitenko himself “would never have missed in any book” 42. By the beginning of the sixties, the number of such “bifurcated” censors increased. Some of them, such as the censor V.N. Beketov, did not hide their sympathy for radical writers, whose works they had to scribble and shred. Others, like V.M. Lazarevsky, a cynical service worker, despised their craft, called it vile and vile and yet, thanks to it, rose to the rank of high ranks and became great dignitaries. Still others, like Feofil Tolstoy, were eager to serve both sides - both Nekrasov's "Notes of the Fatherland" and the Minister of Internal Affairs Timashev. The fourth, like Fyodor Yelenev (Skaldin), combined writing truthful and unvarnished essays about the plight of the people after the peasant reform with the position of an official of the tsarist censorship. But no matter how different these people were, they were united by one thing: while serving the autocratic police system, they, along with this, for various reasons, willingly or unwillingly, contributed to those crushing forces that were gradually destroying it. This duality was skillfully used by the great magazine strategist Nekrasov in the interests of the revolutionary democratic camp. Only now, when materials have finally been published that illuminate his business relations with some of the leaders of the tsarist censorship, are his complex and flexible tactics of using agents of state power to protect the democratic bodies he created being revealed to us, and even then not completely. This tactic is sufficiently clarified in the article that we cited above. The letters of Theophilus Tolstoy to Nekrasov that we have, which have not yet been published, fully confirm the main theses of this article. We received letters from the late academician A.F. Koni. Obviously, there were much more of them, but many of them did not reach us. However, even those in our hands establish with sufficient clarity what was the nature of the services provided by Theophilus Tolstoy to the journalism of the left camp, and what was the payment for these services. To make Theophilus Tolstoy his secret assistant, who, without knowing it, would serve the interests of the revolutionary press, Nekrasov skillfully used his thirst for literary fame, the instability of his convictions, and his lack of Money, and his unquenchable vanity. To the unpublished materials we have, we included those few letters from Theophilus Tolstoy to Nekrasov, which had already been published in the “Archive of the Karabikha Village”, but very incorrectly. These letters are printed from the autographs of the handwritten department of the State Library of the USSR. V.I. Lenin.

F. Tolstoy

The two stories of Theophilus Tolstoy that are mentioned in this letter are 1) “Three ages. Diary, observations and memories of a musician-writer” (“Sovr.”, 1853, X-XII) and 2) “Diseases of the will” (“ Russian Bulletin", 1859, IX-- X) 46. The date of the letter is determined by the date of publication of that double book of Sovremennik, where Shchedrin’s article was published—February 5, 1863. The next two letters from Feofil Tolstoy to Nekrasov, available in our collection, date back to 1866. The first letter, actually a note, marked in the original "March 3":

Your Majesty
Nikolai Alekseevich.

Take the trouble to visit me tomorrow, Friday at 12 o'clock; I need to tell you something.

F. Tolstoy

March 3 March 4 was a Friday in 1866, hence our dating of the note. It is possible that it is connected with the third (March) book of Sovremennik, published the day before, in which Nekrasov’s “Songs about Free Speech” were published. The second letter refers to such an important event as the government ban on Sovremennik by order of the Prince’s Commission. Gagarin. The head of the magazine's office, S.V. Zvonarev, undoubtedly following Nekrasov's instructions, then turned to F.M. Tolstoy for advice and accurate information. After vain attempts to defend this magazine in the Commission, Feofil Tolstoy wrote (must have been at the suggestion of Nekrasov) to the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev, where he said that he “considered it a sacred duty to formally declare” to His Excellency that “harmful and reprehensible the direction of this publication has now changed completely, that the cessation of Sovremennik will completely ruin the innocent Panaev family and that the articles and typesetting of each No cost about 20,000 rubles,” that is, he openly acted not as an accuser, but as a lawyer for Nekrasov 47 . He informs Nekrasov about this in the letter printed below.

Everything that could be done to avert the misfortune that befell you has been done. - Your readiness to submit to the demands of the Council is formally stated, the impeccable content of the 4th and 5th NoNo is indicated and it is even stated that Sovremennik is not your exclusive property - and that termination of publication will entail the ruin of Panaev’s heirs. “But unfortunately, nothing could be done!” The highest order positively stops the publication, and it was even impossible to defend the 5th book, in which there is not a hitch. - The blow was dealt by your Club friend (M. N. Muravyov-Vilensky), in whose honor the poems were written. In my opinion, you could submit a petition to the highest name, stating your readiness, etc., etc. - but will this serve the matter? -- Don't know. I grieve from the bottom of my heart. Although F. M. Tolstoy’s efforts were not crowned (and could not be crowned) with success, he nevertheless showed considerable readiness to serve and help in this matter. Nekrasov, apparently, did not remain in debt. We conclude this from the fact that on the cover and title of those two volumes of “Works” by F. M. Tolstoy, which were mentioned above, there is the following mark: Edition by S. V. Zvonarev. St. Petersburg. 1866. Printing house of K. Wulf Liteiny Prospekt, No. 60. Bookseller S.V. Zvonarev, who at one time was in charge of the office of the Sovremennik magazine, was known to be engaged in publishing activities under the direct supervision of Nekrasov and with his financial support. Without the poet's sanction, Zvonarev did not publish anything at all. This is evident even from the published letters of Theophilus Tolstoy. Regarding one novel by an author he patronized, he writes to Nekrasov: “If you don’t even want the novel to be published by Zvonarev, then this can be settled differently” 48 . In a word, F. M. Tolstoy soon received reward for all his troubles. By the end of 1867, through incredible efforts, the poet managed to accomplish something almost impossible under the conditions of that time: to recreate, a year after the closure of Sovremennik, a new platform for the revolutionary democratic party - to take over Otech. Zap. Kraevsky. In the interests of this matter, Nekrasov needed to renew and consolidate all his censorship connections - among other things, with Feofil Tolstoy. On December 23, 1867, that is, a few days before the publication of the first book of his new magazine, he wrote the following letter to F. M. Tolstoy: “You are completely moral, dear Teofil Matveevich, you should scold me. _and_ _n_u_zh_n_o_ to visit you, which, finally, I will do tomorrow at 1 o’clock,” etc. d. 49. The letter is friendly; in it, Nekrasov expresses regret over the illness of Feofil Tolstoy, assures him that he views their relationship as more comradely than official, etc. Other tactics were impossible in those days, and hardly a single book "Otech. Zap" " could have appeared in print if Nekrasov had not established such relationships and connections with the censors he hated. But, of course, for Theophilus Tolstoy, who longed for writing, mere expressions of affection were not enough. He needed higher pay: he wanted to collaborate in Nekrasov’s magazine. Nekrasov was forced to invite him to Otech.Zap. as a music and theater critic. For this, F. M. Tolstoy pledged to protect the new magazine in every possible way in the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs, and also to subject it to internal home censorship on a monthly basis, even before the book was printed. It is possible that Nekrasov advised Feofil Tolstoy to take on the duties of officially overseeing Otech.Zap. member of the Council (each journal was attached to a specific member of the Council), which should have given his opinions about the journal, stated at the meeting, greater authority. However, judging by Tolstoy’s speeches in the Council dating back to 1868, one gets the impression that defending Otech.Zap. he did not start working immediately, but only at the end of the year, which, however, could have been a conspiratorial device to cover up the unofficial connection he had established with the editors of Nekrasov’s magazine 50 . F. M. Tolstoy immediately began his duties as a home censor, as is clear from his following note to Nekrasov regarding Nekrasov’s poem “The Court”: But he is more blessed who has absolutely no relatives. These two verses, of course, are not anti-censorship, but they echo the principles of the teaching for which “Let’s Lie” was banned: it seems to me that one should, and especially at first, not provoke such a rapprochement. IN in this case F. M. Tolstoy did not guess the guidelines of his superiors at that time, because not only the two lines given in this letter, but also all the other verses of the poem “The Court” turned out to be uncensored. The poem had to be cut from the 1st book of "Fatherland Zap." for 1868. There is no doubt that the note we are printing by Theophilus Tolstoy is one of many of the same kind. Obviously, he looked through all the material intended for the first and second books of Otech. Zap. for 1868. It was big job, and soon he demanded an additional “payment” for it: he offered to print it in “ Domestic Notes"a novel from high society everyday life, "Misunderstanding", written by a person close to him and, it seems, even a relative. Nekrasov, obviously, answered him (in a letter that has not reached us) that the novel does not correspond to the program of the magazine, but that he still conditionally accepts it and pays the author an advance on the fee (this is evidenced by the mention of the receipt returned by F. Tolstoy) and, moreover, offers the author to pay a penalty if the novel is not published within a year, which, of course, was a disguised bribe. F. M. Tolstoy responded to Nekrasov with the following letter: I understand everything and I know how to appreciate every impulse! You are afraid that the “Misunderstanding” will not give off an aristocratic spirit, despite the complete absence of any tendentiousness in it regarding _b_a_r_s_t_v_a. - You want to first strengthen the revived “Domestic Notes> on the basis of the former Sovremennik:, i.e. on democratic principles. - On your part, this is completely rational; But, in my opinion, your fears are in vain. -- The poetic and descriptive chatter of "Misunderstandings", with an admixture of mental analysis, will interest, there is no doubt, the public; but the magazine’s _s_u_t_ is currently unable to limit itself to fiction alone. Those who are interested in light reading will, willy-nilly, look through other sections of the magazine and thus become acquainted, perhaps, with views that are new to them. I am firmly convinced that you have no intention of preaching about the need for any drastic revolution, but it is desirable for each of us that there finally be a complete merger between all the educated people of our beloved fatherland, without distinction of castes and any ranks. That is why it would be desirable to see on the pages of the reborn magazine, even occasionally and only in the fictional part, an echo of the party that seems to you infected with the pernicious spirit of a closed caste. Believe that over time all the angularities will be smoothed out and the desired rapprochement will take place - if our serious magazine organs contribute to this. I am enclosing herewith a receipt from the author of “Misunderstanding,” adding that he agrees to the penalty you propose if his novel is not published during this year.

All yours F.T.

28 f 1868 Extremely characteristic is the confidence of Theophilus Tolstoy, expressed in this letter, that Nekrasov has no intention (!) of preaching the need for any sharp turn and that the harmonious _s_l_i_ya_n_i_e_ of all warring classes, "castes and ranks" is his cherished dream. This Manilov utopia, that in the near future the class struggle will cease and will be replaced by the idyllic friendship of peasants with landowners, workers with owners, counts and princes with commoners, was very widespread in the liberalizing bureaucratic spheres. Censorship repeatedly made demands on Nekrasov that he facilitate this coveted fusion of classes. In this volume of "Literary Heritage" a letter from the censor P. Kapnist to Nekrasov is published, where he expresses his joy to him that Nekrasov in the poem "Russian Women" contributes (!) to the reconciliation of the highest aristocracy with the people (!?) (see. higher). Feofil Tolstoy did not understand and did not know Nekrasov’s true beliefs to such an extent that he, as we see, hoped to attract the poet’s sympathies to the novel from the life of high society salons i_i_n_i_i_ _v_r_a_zh_d_u_yu_sh_i_h_ _k_l_a_s_s_o_v! The very fact that F. M. Tolstoy considered it possible to address Nekrasov with this kind of argumentation testifies to how poorly even the most responsible officials of the censorship department - the direct conductors of the literary policy of the autocracy - imagined the true beliefs of the poet. And, of course, Nekrasov did not strive to orient them correctly. The story mentioned in the letter was signed under the pseudonym Dankevich. IN “The Experience of a Dictionary of Pseudonyms of Russian Writers” by V. Kartsov and M. Mazaev (St. Petersburg, 1891) indicates that Dankevich is a pseudonym for E. Tolstoy. It is possible that this pseudonym came from the name of the village of Dankovki, which belonged to numerous brothers and sisters of Theophilus Tolstoy. In a later review of Dankevich’s story, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin pointed out that its author was “entering the literary field for the first time” and had a negative attitude towards its content 51 . Obviously, Nekrasov, in a letter to F. Tolstoy, continued to assert that it does not correspond to the program of Otechestvennye Zapiski. This caused a highly aggressive rebuke from Theophilus Tolstoy. In the letter that we print below, he bluntly announced that "Otech. Zap." Nekrasov is a “receptacle of dirty waters,” and that the “fragrant” high-society story can at least partially save them from the dirt. As one of the particularly “fetid streams” he pointed to wonderful story G.I. Uspensky "Stop" 5 2. I am of the opinion that “Literature,” in the broad sense of the word, must accept into its depths, like the ocean, all possible sources, rivers and streams. Whatever the color, taste and smell they may be, these tributaries, merging with the clean, powerful, beneficial waters of the boundless ocean, lose their primitive character and, in general, represent that majestic spectacle, before which every thinking mortal will come to the ages of ages. delight. What to swim in the sea, What to read Dante: His poems are firm and full, Like elastic waves of the sea. (Shevyrev) But if literature in general can be likened to the ocean, then its divisions (such as fine literature, etc., etc.) can rightly be called _b_a_s_s_e_y_n_a_m_i. “Imagine what an unpleasant and fetid sight the pool will present, into which dirty streams from underground sewers will constantly pour in!” Reading the works of Messrs. Reshetnikov and Gleb Uspensky, I was overcome with fear! I am afraid that your magazine pool will become a receptacle for underground, dirty water. — Take, for example, the essay entitled “Stopping.” - Can this really be called “fine literature”? What did the talented author want to reproduce? Dirt, disorder, stupidity - and all kinds of abominations of Russian society. Dilute all this with literary water - and, of course, you get dirty, muddy waters that will give the pool a completely unattractive appearance. They say that self-flagellation is a useful thing, that it polishes the blood. May be! - but _s_a_m_o_o_p_l_e_v_a_n_i_e, in any case, produces only disgust and nothing more. You said very poetically about Gogol: “... _i_ _k_a_k_ _l_yu_b_i_l_ _o_n_ _n_e_n_a_v_i_d_ya.” But Uspensky grew up neither to love nor to hatred. - Gogol scourged lovingly, with a smile on his lips; Uspensky _p_l_yu_e_t_s_ya out of anger. Believe me, most respected Nikolai Alekseevich, that it is time to refresh the pool of fine literature of your magazine with a clean stream - otherwise it will rot and emit a noxious smell. - Leave ethnographic and other types of research for other departments, be strict towards troubles, punish vices both large and small, but in the department of fine literature, let them breathe, let your soul and imagination at least take some inspiration. Man, although a mammal, is not a reptile. - Counting _w_sh_e_y_ on the head is really not the job of a fiction writer, but of a physiologist or, perhaps, an ethnographer. Here is sincere advice from a person with developed elegant taste (you yourself have repeatedly recognized this quality in me). Believe me, it is more useful to listen to the advice of such a person than to listen to people, although smart and perhaps practical, who lack an artistic nail in their head. July 6, 1868 Tsarskoe These are the lessons of “aesthetics” that the brilliant poet, who stood at the head of the revolutionary-democratic detachment of Russian literature, had to listen to from the petty scribbler “Theophilus” only because he was an official of the censorship department. The following letter from Theophilus Tolstoy testifies that, while worrying about Dankevich, Rostislav did not forget his other relatives. This letter will be handed to you by my nephew Mikhail Khitrovo, a young poet whose works you paid attention to last winter. Receive him cordially and with dignity.

Yours F. Tolstoy

17th July 1868 P.S. When will you start publishing "Misunderstanding"? The following letter from Theophilus Tolstoy is dedicated to the anonymous article by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin “Literature and Society” from the series “Signs of the Times” (in a separate edition and in collected works - “Literary Situation”), intended for publication in the August book “Father Zap." for 1868. This article talked about the persecution of the advanced press after the Karakozov days, the main organizer of which was M. N. Muravyov-Vilensky (“The Hangman”). Recalling this recent past, Shchedrin, among other things, wrote: “Just yesterday he was something of a darling of fortune, just yesterday a circle of people crowded around him, loudly declaring their sympathy, and now one minute is enough to put him in that normal loneliness , from which, under certain conditions of life, he should not have left. This moment you can not only predict, but even almost feel. _r_l_i_v_o_y_ _sh_u_k_i, _p_r_i_ _v_i_d_e_ _k_o_t_o_r_o_y, _p_o_d_o_b_n_o_ _b_r_y_z_g_a_m, _b_r_y_z_n_u_t_ _v_o_ _v_s_e_ _s_ t_o_r_o_n_y_ _r_e_z_v_ya_sh_i_e_s_ya_ _v_k_u_p_e_ _p_i_s_k_a_r_i". It was not difficult to guess that the image of a voracious pike was suggested to Shchedrin by the activities of M.N. Muravyov-Vilensky, especially since in the original text of the article this image, as we see from the letter of Theophilus Tolstoy, was outlined even more clearly. Theophilus Tolstoy, in his letter to Nekrasov, points out that the allusion to Muravyov is too clear and that it is necessary to destroy or weaken it. Following this advice, the editors of Otech.Zap. crossed out some part of the text that followed the quoted phrase, i.e. those lines that F. Tolstoy conveys with the words: “and the stage is filled with people swearing, spitting, etc., etc.” Thus, only from the letter of Theophilus Tolstoy we now learn about the existence of this bill. The other bill referred to the final paragraph of the article. There, Ant-type administrators and all their associates are called “walking painted coffins.” Now it turns out that Shchedrin said: “walking painted coffins, _v_e_l_i_ch_a_yu_sh_i_e_ _s_e_b_ya_ _s_t_o_l_p_a_m_i_ _m_i_r_a” 53.

The article "Signs of the Times", no doubt written by famous author “Governor of Essays” will inevitably have to be subject to _o_b_s_u_zh_d_e_n_i_yu_ _S_o_v_e_t_a if it appears in its present form. _B_e_s_t_o_l_k_o_v_a_ya, _p_r_o_zh_o_r_l_i_v_a_ya_ _sh_u_k_a, at the sight of which gizzards frolicking together splash in all directions and the stage is filled with swearing, spitting, etc., etc., it cannot be “The News” or similar spies. I hope that you do not classify us as _k_r_a_sh_e_n_y_kh_ _g_r_o_b_o_ov, calling themselves the pillars of the world - but, nevertheless, I must tell you that, for my own sake, I find the tone of the article very perky. The purpose of this note is to warn you. Let there be no condemnation that you were attacked from around the corner. I don’t know how the Council will decide, but I repeat once again that if the article appears without changes, that is, with _shch_u_k_a_m_i_, etc., then it will be necessary to declare it. 4 Av It is characteristic that, for the sake of secrecy, Feofil Tolstoy did not sign with his full name those of his letters where he acted as Nekrasov’s secret adviser. By this time, he became aware that M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin intended to greatly reduce the imposed "Otech. Zap." story,” and hastened to declare his protest, at the same time exalting himself and his aesthetic taste. Do you really think that it is enough to be a very intelligent person in order to have a fully developed artistic instinct, that is, to have, as Sollogub used to say, “an artistic nail in the head”? The famous founder of incriminating literature is a witty publicist, his word cuts through the veils of public life, like a diamond cuts glass. - The types he deduces are correctly captured and mercilessly exposed to shame in all their nakedness and in all their ugliness. - But Shchedrin’s palette contains only bright colors, but not those delicate shades that are necessary for depicting female types. - Michel Angelo never wrote -_m_a_d_o_n, and Carlo Dolce practiced almost exclusively in this genre. Shchedrin's types reek of either vodka or padchouli, which, of course, should drown out the delicate smell of _V_i_o_l_e_t_t_e_ _d_e_ _P_a_r_m_e_ or _m_o_u_s_s_e_l_i_n_e. That is why I believe that your most respected colleague, despite his most insightful mind and enormous talent, cannot categorically cut, shred and, even more so, change a work written in a purely artistic spirit, without the slightest admixture of any political or social tendentiousness. “N_e_d_o_r_a_z_u_m_e_n_i_e” (and not “Bewilderment”, as you write) in terms of brushwork belongs to the category of paintings à la Carlo Dolce, and not Michele Angelo. - However, the author agrees to _s_o_k_r_a_sh_e_n_i_ya, but not otherwise than under his direct supervision. To do this, take the trouble to send the original, with a mark of the supposed _s_o_k_r_a_sh_e_n_i_y, and the author and your humble servant will review the marks and declare either protest or agreement in the margins. The novel is completely finished - and finished satisfactorily, that is, with sufficient consistency; at the end of the week I will send the manuscript (of the remaining chapters), but with the condition that it be returned to me for _p_e_r_e_p_i_s_k_i, because I want to keep the original manuscript and submit it for printing. I'm waiting for the original with marks. “You can deliver him to the Main Directorate, and I will order that he be sent to me.”

7 a P. S. Try to prepare that part of the manuscript that you intend to print in No. 9 by Saturday morning and send it to the department, because the courier must be with me on the hourly train. With it I will send _o_k_o_n_ch_a_n_i_e_ r to you. It is characteristic that, pestering Nekrasov, as they say, with a knife to his throat and, in essence, forcing him to publish “The Misunderstanding,” Feofil Tolstoy at the same time assures the poet (and perhaps himself) that the relationship between them is completely free.

I urge you once again to discard the idea that I am imposing on you the novel I recommend by a new beginning author. - If your supporters, that is, your literary circle, do not even in the slightest desire for this work to be published on the pages of Otechestvennye Zapiski, then they do so directly, openly and without the slightest twinge. “I swear on your honor that this will not offend me at all!” — In persuading you to publish the said novel, I pursued only a thought I had long cherished, namely: _s_l_i_ya_n_i_e_ _r_a_z_l_i_ch_n_y_h_ _l_i_t_e_r_a_t_u_r_n_y_h_ _e_l_e_m_e_n_t_o_v. I wanted to pour a stream of fresh whitish water into the stormy, somewhat reddish waves of your magazine. - I know very well that “Misunderstanding” is far from an exemplary work, but it reflects some kind of sincere, youthful freshness, which, in my opinion, not only will not harm, but will even refresh the somewhat gloomy and, I must admit, , a rather bleak background to your strict journal.-- Therefore, I ask you, do not be shy and act according to your utmost understanding. - For this, if you finally decide to accept “Misunderstanding”, then I will frankly explain to you both the reason why I would prefer to publish it in “From Z” and not in “Russian Bulletin”, and the final conditions of the author. "Otech Zap" is published here, we can observe the proofreading and, with mutual agreement, make the appropriate corrections and reductions, which is very important for a novice author. For this, here are the indispensable conditions under which I will give you the work I recommend: 1st. The printing of the novel will begin with the 10th book and, if possible, not too homeopathically, because there is nothing more annoying than extreme fragmentation of the story. 2nd. Please notify us of the abbreviations and corrections indicated by Mr. Saltykov before printing - and then send us the proof (the third, that is, the last). 3rd. There are no royalties due for the part already published in Notes for Reading, but in return I ask, if possible, to order the making of _t_r_i_s_t_a_ (300) separate bound prints. - Apart from paper, it won't cost you anything. 4th. For that part of the novel that is still in manuscript, you will pay fifty rubles (50 rubles) per printed sheet upon completion of printing. I ask you not to delay in providing a detailed and final answer to all the above points, so that I can, without wasting time, take appropriate measures to complete this matter. 8 Av As can be seen from the letter, the beginning of the novel had already been published in the journal “Notes for Reading”. It was an ephemeral magazine published by the writer-entrepreneur K.V. Trubnikov under his own newspaper "Birzhevye Vedomosti". The ending of the novel had not yet been written at that time, so Nekrasov could not judge the entire work. Naturally, he was not inclined to print this hostile direction of Otech.Zap. novel. But for tactical reasons, Nekrasov, in order to maintain business relations with Theophilus Tolstoy, delayed the matter, did not give a definite answer and continued with the greatest patience to withstand the attacks of Theophilus Tolstoy, which became more and more violent. In essence, there could be no question of Otech.Zap. They began to reprint stories alien to their direction from small magazines. Apparently, on August 8 or 9, 1868, Nekrasov notified Feofil Tolstoy that he had finally decided not to publish Dankevich’s “Misunderstanding.” Theophilus Tolstoy responded to him with the following letter: I wanted to warn you that in the last “Owl Review” there were some very unfortunate phrases regarding the orders of Princess Gagarina, such as: Spanish winds, rose oil and _z_i_, etc. The essence does not benefit from this, and from this the magazine gets a _z_a_d_o_r_n_y_y flavor, which should be avoided. I regret that you have created a work that is incomparably more poetic and thoughtful than most of the “Reshetnikovs and Uspenskys” you publish. - However, there is no arguing about tastes, and if the “Misunderstanding” (now completely finished and I can say _b_l_i_s_t_a_t_e_l_l_n_o_ finished) is a burden to you, then I will send it to Mr. Katkov. If you would like to see me in Tsarskoe, then I live in Malaya Street, in Sazhenov’s house and am always ready to receive you with pleasure. The first lines of this letter contain a response to “Modern Notes” by N. A. Demert, published in the July book “Otech. Zap.” for 1868. These notes were directed against Prince. E.V. Gagarina, the wife of the Arkhangelsk governor, who was diligently glorified by the local “Gubernskie Gazette” for her ostentatious charity. In one of the issues of this government body it was said that “thanks to the material and tender care of her ladyship, beneficial measures have been taken to eliminate the very causes of poverty<...>The humane and economic significance of Her Ladyship's project will probably be appreciated by everyone who is not so selfish as to look indifferently at raising the level of well-being of the working class." Meanwhile, in the Arkhangelsk province at that time there was a terrible famine, and "Her Ladyship" took all measures to strangle private initiative of those people who tried to help the starving. Pointing to this, the author of “Modern Notes” wrote about the praises that were lavished on the governor’s wife: “To write, as the editor of the Arkhangelsk Provincial Gazette writes, you must first dip the pen in rose oil, coat the paper with honey and cover it with violets. But in order not to get dirty, it’s better to leave this matter completely.” It is these “perky” lines of N.A. Demert that F.M. Tolstoy points out in the first part of his letter. By that time, obviously, it had been discovered that the beginning of “Misunderstanding,” published in “Notes for Reading,” was imposed on this magazine by Theophilus Tolstoy using the same maneuver that he used in relation to Nekrasov. Obviously, Nekrasov, in his letter dated August 8 or 9, hinted at these unfavorable rumors, and referred to the opinion of his closest comrades (Shchedrin and Eliseev). Then Feofil Tolstoy - as always happened to him in such cases - assumed the appearance of offended innocence and addressed an angry letter - this time not to Nekrasov, but to to the owner of "Otech. Zap." A. A. Kraevsky, accusing Nekrasov of violating editorial ethics, and M. E. Saltykov and G. Z. Eliseev of not wanting to let a foreign competitor into their midst (!) and transparently hinting that they were allegedly led by in this case, selfish (!) calculation. But although Tolstoy was addressed to Kraevsky, he undoubtedly knew that Nekrasov would also read his letter. From the fact that this letter was discovered in Nekrasov’s archive, we conclude that this is what happened: obviously, Kraevsky then handed it over to the poet, who included it with other letters of Theophilus Tolstoy. I expected the staff new edition"O Z" will become angry against the publication in their magazine of a work devoid of any tendentiousness and not imbued with dirty realism; but I never expected, considering them honest people, that they would condescend to slander in order to get rid of a work that did not suit their tuning fork. What are they hinting at when they talk about “Birzhevye Vedomosti”? Are there really enough vile people to suspect me of _n_a_s_i_l_i_i? Trubnikov flatly refused to publish the continuation of the novel, despite the conditions, but did I do any harm to him or even stop my relations with him? “On the contrary, I constantly tried to be useful to him.” - As for Nekrasov, I solemnly affirm that I did not at all think of imposing the novel “Misunderstanding” on him and I confess that I cannot explain to myself what could have served as the reason for canceling the decision that had already been announced to me and that I had made to write a novel in "From Notes." Nekrasov, as fair man, I must testify to you that I made this decision completely calmly and immediately offered the novel to Katkov. Something inexplicable to me happened here. I once received a note from Nikolai Alekseevich, in which he notified me that due to _and_z_m_e_n_i_v_sh_i_m_s_ya_ circumstances, he wanted to keep the novel for himself, and on the same day I received the most friendly answer from Moscow. “I sent Katkov’s original letter to Nekrasov, asking him convincingly not to be embarrassed by the promise he made and to allow me to send the manuscript to Moscow, but Nikolai Alekseevich urgently demanded that the manuscript be left behind him. - Here is an accurate and truthful account of the progress of this matter. I understand that the circle of writers who feed on "From Notes" does not want to allow into their ranks a writer who is not of the same rank as them - this is _z_a_ _s_u_sh_e_s_t_v_o_v_a_n_i_e, but it is not clear that Nekrasov did not see through his employees and did not guess before entering into negotiations with me , to what extreme the anger of these people can reach. After Nikolai Alekseevich’s categorical letter, depicting in such gloomy colors the consequences that could occur from the publication of the famous novel in Ot Zap, I can only ask to immediately return the manuscript and consider this matter over. As for the deposit, the author will return it when he receives money from the editorial office in which the novel will be published.

All yours F. Tolstoy-

P.S. I am returning Nekrasov’s letter. Obviously, Nekrasov, not wanting to quarrel with the influential censor, tried in a letter specially written for this purpose to mitigate the trouble caused to him. This is clear from the following answer of Theophilus Tolstoy: I believe that if the matter completely depended on you personally, then nothing unpleasant would happen to my personality, and therefore, no matter how sad I am about all this gloomy situation, my relationship with you personally will not change. I will send the manuscript to Moscow - and upon receipt of the answer I will notify you of the consequences. The next letter from F. Tolstoy is related to the next, ninth, book "Otech. Zap." for 1868. Having in mind the upcoming consideration of the book at a meeting of the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs and wanting to know in advance the possible results of this consideration, Nekrasov turned to Feofil Tolstoy with a request to “express frankly” his impression of the book. Nekrasov’s fears were well founded and, as we will see, were largely justified. F. Tolstoy recognized this book as “harmful.” Shchedrin's satire seemed especially dangerous to him: the essay "Lightweights" (from the series "Signs of the Times" - without a signature) and two feuilletons from the series "Letters about the Province" (the fourth and fifth - signed: N. Gurin). In these three articles, the ensuing post-Karakozov era was characterized as the triumph of “lightweight scoundrels” who occupied all command posts of government in an atmosphere of intensified feudal reaction. As F. M. Tolstoy quite correctly guessed, by “phrasesome capons” Shchedrin meant the liberal administrators of the previous era (such as the “Vilyaevs,” i.e., similar to the Minister of Internal Affairs P. A. Valuev, who had recently been dismissed) , under “historiographers” - governors of former times, etc. The traditions of Sovremennik were resurrected, according to F. M. Tolstoy, also in the article by A. M. Skabichevsky “Russian thoughtlessness”, where Turgenev’s novel “Fathers and Sons” "was given the same interpretation as the critic M.A. Antonovich gave it on the pages of Sovremennik in 1862. F. M. Tolstoy very correctly expresses in his letter the attitude of the censorship authorities towards M. A. Antonovich, calling him _s_t_r_a_sh_n_o_p_a_m_ya_t_n_y_m: now we know that when Nekrasov was trying to reorganize Otech. Zap., he was asked not to allow editor Antonovich and not even publish his articles. But the “terribly memorable” Antonovich was replaced by Skabichevsky, who repeated in his article the same reproaches to Turgenev that Antonovich addressed to him in his famous pamphlet “Asmodeus of Our Time.” In a word, in the ninth book F. M. Tolstoy, not without gloating, found enough material to characterize the “political unreliability” of the editors of Otech. Zap. After reading this ninth book, he decided at the next meeting of the Council to make a statement that the editors of Otech. Zap. continues the activities of Sovremennik, which was closed by order of the Tsar. He warns Nekrasov about this speech of his: Let our formidable satirist classify me in the category _l_e_g_k_o_v_e_s_n_y_kh_ or perhaps even in the category _f_o_f_a_n_o_v, but still, according to the promise I made to you, I am obliged to frankly express the impression made on me 9 No. "From Zap" . Having just received a new book last night, I have not yet had time to read it from board to board, but I have already tasted enough of this food to have no doubt that it was prepared by the best _V_a_t_e_l_i_m_i (Editor's note: V_a_t_e_l_b - the famous French chef of the 18th century .) former Sovremennik. The venerable satirist Shchedrin appears in this No. fully armed with his former allegorical and poisonous speech, and _S_k_a_b_i_ch_e_v_s_k_i_y_ strongly responds with_t_r_a_sh_n_o_p_a_m_ya_t_n_y_m_ Antonovich. The articles entitled “Lightweight” and “Letters from the Province” (obviously from the same pen) are reminiscent of the former interline censored literature, when the names of the Smokgol Baron and a certain Karl Ivanovich meant completely different personalities. It doesn’t take much insight to guess that the epithet “phrase capons” refers to _V_i_l_ya_e_v_s who have left the political arena - and the traces of “lightweight fofans and lip historiographers” are nothing more than the latest administrative and political figures... Make an excuse by saying that here we are talking about windbags _b_o_m_o_n_d_a_ and all sorts of harmless scoundrels is impossible - because the author himself calls them “the modern rulers of our thoughts” and attributes to them an enormous, irresistible, so to speak, significance, expressed by the reactionary exclamation: _p_o_d_d_a_v_a_y! _n_a_t_i_g_i_v_a_y! _p_o_d_b_i_r_a_y! _В_е_д_ь_ _н_е_ _и_з_л_е_р_о_в_с_к_и_е_ _ж_е_ _ш_е_л_о_п_а_и_ _п_р_и_д_у_м_а_л_и_ _п_о_д_о_б_н_ы_й_ _л_о_з_у_н_г? It would not be worth talking about such an empty-headed trick. Consequently, the bilious satirist aims precisely at making readers understand that all leaders of public and political system are nothing more than “lightweight and foolish”. - This kind of thing is at least unfair and, in my extreme understanding, not consistent with the dignity of the political press of our times. - No matter how limited the printed word is, the law of April 6 still provides the right to discuss both legal provisions and government orders - and as a result, without resorting to allegorical pamphlets, a writer can usefully point out both the abuses and the lack of legal provisions. I do not suggest that you make any changes to the articles by Shchedrin-Gurin - this will lead nowhere - and I do not suggest that you exclude them altogether - since this will be sensitive to your publishing heart; but I, out of conscience, must warn you that these articles will be announced to the Council and will be included in the publication of your journal. As far as I understand the matter, this will not yet give rise to any punitive measures, but it will probably delay for a long time the resolution of your sole independent editorial office. Regarding Skabichevsky’s articles, I will tell you that these articles are sensible, but premature. You were too hasty. - You should strengthen your civil position and prove in practice that the basic principles of Sovremennik were misinterpreted, and then get down to the work of the newest figures. The article “Russian thoughtlessness” immediately raises high the former banner of Sovremennik, and speaks proudly and with contempt about all people who do not share the views of people who are suspected guilty of bad intentions. - I repeat that this is premature and - in the current state of affairs - the brilliant dialectics of the mature Antonovich, i.e. Skabichevsky, will only lead to conclusions unfavorable for your magazine. I expressed my opinion to you, and then whatever you want, God willing! The letter shows traces of bitterness caused by Nekrasov’s refusal to publish Dankevich’s novel. Let us note first of all F. Tolstoy’s indication that, having published so many “poisonous” articles in his magazine, Nekrasov can no longer count on his support in liberating Otech. Zap from the burdensome tutelage of Kraevsky. Knowing how persistently Nekrasov sought to be allowed to single-handedly edit this magazine, Feofil Tolstoy warns him that all his efforts in this matter will now be unsuccessful. As you know, Theophilus Tolstoy did not limit himself to threats alone. At the next meeting of the Council (September 17, 1868), he made an official statement regarding the ninth book, in which he accused the magazine of being “closely related to Sovremennik, which was discontinued by the highest order,” i.e., they revealed the direction of the new Nekrasov publication, defining it as an organ of the revolutionary party. It must have been precisely these actions of Theophilus Tolstoy that Shchedrin said: “Theophilus is doing shit!”, and Eliseev, not without disgust, repeated the saying: “God will not betray him, Theophilus will not eat him!” F. Tolstoy’s informative speech in the Council (it repeated in expanded form the contents of his above letter to Nekrasov) ended, however, with practical proposals that did not follow from it at all. In the final part of his statement, F. Tolstoy, in complete contradiction with the accusations he had just formulated, proposed “this time limiting ourselves to a verbal suggestion to the responsible editor, explaining to him the above considerations.” Moreover, he ended his speech with these words, designed to deflect the blow he had delivered from the editors: “Knowing from experience how attentive Messrs. Kraevsky and Nekrasov are to the instructions given by the observing member, I am convinced that the said suggestion will bring the desired fruit and will retain the editorial office of Otech. Refugee from further evasions" 54. However, “further deviations” continued. F. Tolstoy’s double-dealing activities also continued. His next letter is entirely devoted to the analysis of Shchedrin's "Old Pompadour", intended for publication in the November book "Otech. Zap." for 1868, Shchedrin's satire again attracted the disapproving attention of F. Tolstoy.

"The Old Pompadour" has the sin of being nothing more than a pamphlet written with the aim of ridiculing, hurting and disgracing individuals who are very well known in the area that the author wanted to describe (almost the Ryazan governor). _In_o_-_v_t_o_r_y_kh, this humorous story is all the more inconvenient because from among the persons disgraced in it, two heads of the province are put on display, under the funny name _p_o_m_p_a_d_u_r_o_v, and in order to make it clear as day that these are _g_u_b_e_r_n_a_t_o_r_s, and not some or high-ranking and influential provincial personalities - the author surrounded them with all the attributes of a governor, such as a police chief, officials of special assignments, etc., etc., and even called the _G_u_b_e_r_n_s_k_i_m_ government the place of their service. This makes me assume that the executive editor of Oteches Zapiski _d_e_j_u_r_e, that is, by law, did not inform you of the essence of the suggestion recently made to all editors of periodicals according to V p. The essence of this suggestion was the invitation of Messrs. Editors must exercise extreme caution in their reviews of senior administrative officials placed at the head of the State Administration. - There is no doubt that governors belong to the category of these persons, since they are appointed by personal decrees and for the most part (especially from the military) on the personal initiative of E. V. The following story “The Old Pompadour” represents a double violation: _v_o_-_p_e_r_v_y_kh, against Art. 10th IV department of the law on April 5, as well as against the 11th article of the same department, which states, among other things, that the guilty are subject to such and such penalties (Article 10) for any disclosure of such a circumstance that could damage the human body , _d_o_s_t_o_i_n_s_t_v_u_ _i_l_i_ _d_o_b_r_o_m_u_ _i_m_e_n_i_ official, and on page 117 of the story it is said that the second pompadour was married and had children, then committed adultery, had a mistress; and Article 11 specifies penalties for any offensive review that includes slander or abuse. (In addition to the funny nickname pompadour, on page 115 it is said that both governors were stupid). _V_o_-_v_t_o_r_y_h, the publication of such a story, after the above-mentioned _v_n_u_sh_e_n_i_i_ya, represents a clear evasion of the execution of the highest will. Due to all of the above, I consider it my duty to warn you that if the story “Old Pompad” appears in its present form (and how it can be changed is not my business to indicate), then this article will be presented for discussion by the Council, and what the Council will decide is up to me Don't know. On November 8, 1868, Shchedrin took note of some of the instructions of Theophilus Tolstoy. Comparing the manuscript of “The Old Pompadour” with the text of “Fatherland Zap.”, we see that throughout the entire story the satirist carefully removed hints that the pompadour was the governor and that the matter took place in Ryazan. Thus, “Oleg of Ryazan” was replaced by “Prince Oleg” (p. 109), and all the positions of the officials surrounding the pompadour were reduced to district scales: the police officer was replaced by a clerk, the police officer - by a quarterly officer, and in some places by a clerk, the police chief - by a private bailiff and etc. Instead of "the eye of the whole _k_r_a_ya" - "the eye of the whole _g_o_r_o_d_a". Where the manuscript said: “in the province,” the magazine printed: “on a business trip,” etc., etc. However, Shchedrin did not follow the advice of Theophilus Tolstoy in everything. On page 115 he left those words that the censor suggested that he eliminate: “Pompadour” guessed about the old “pompadour” and about the new one that “they are both stupid...” 55 . The next three letters of Theophilus Tolstoy are devoted to his notes on music, which Nekrasov was forced to place from time to time in Otech. Zap. They were published without the author's signature: in November 1868 - "Russian Opera", in December - "Musical Review", in January 1869 - "St. Petersburg Theaters". It cannot be said that the editors of the magazine treated these forced articles with great respect. She shortened and corrected them, trying to erase at least a little from them that specific spirit that was inherent in Rostislav’s feuilleton articles. But, despite all her efforts, these articles did not fit well with the general tone of Otech.Zap. So, for example, in the article “Russian Opera” F. M. Tolstoy, according to his old habit, advertises himself, informing readers that in the newspaper “Golos” “Mr. Rostislav” gave a completely correct assessment of Richard Wagner’s opera “Lohengrin”, and in “ Musical Review", discussing the three artists who performed the title role in the operetta "Beautiful Helen", notes with a melancholy sigh that "the type of Russian cocotte has not yet been developed, which is due to strong competition in this field from foreigners - mainly French and German women" 56 . All this was in such blatant contradiction with the traditions of both of Nekrasov’s journals that only the extreme need to maintain business connections with an influential censor can explain the appearance of such inappropriate articles on the pages of Otech. Zap. Nekrasov reworked and trimmed these articles, trying to give them at least a neutral character, which each time caused violent protests from Theophilus Tolstoy, to which, as is clear from the published letters, Nekrasov did not pay any attention. Someone overdid it on the “Musical Review” and did it, I must admit, rather unsuccessfully. So, for example: the characteristic of the effect on unusual listeners of the strongest, that is, German, music is turned off - which is why all the piquancy of the comparison has disappeared. In the characterization of the German Helen, the main feature of the German woman is thrown out: complete unceremoniousness face to face and _ts_i_r_l_i_h_ _m_a_n_i_r_l_i_h_k_e_y_t_ in public. Finally, about Lucca’s illness is omitted: “the uninvited caresses of our Red Nose Frost” and almost nothing is said, while in “Modern Notes” it is indicated for details about the disease in “Musical Review”. Why is this being done? I can’t understand: if for _s_o_k_r_a_sh_e_n_i_ya_ _h_i_s_l_a_ _s_t_r_o_k - then it is better to do this by mutual agreement - because the author can always sacrifice many lines - but will never distort the main thing, i.e. the very essence. Now the glitter has been removed - and this has completely spoiled the matter - due to an inexplicable whim. I say this for your own benefit - but for me it doesn’t matter. P.S. I just had time to skim through “Review” - we’ll see what happens next. The next two letters are again devoted to his “complaints about the editorial “arbitrariness” of Nekrasov. In the first of them, he, acting like a fool, derogatorily writes about himself in the third person as a little-known and modest “supplier of Fatherland Zap.” in the department of musical reviews." The most precious of modern poets to the Russian heart and highly respected Nikolai Alekseevich! _P_o_s_t_a_v_shch_i_k_ "Father of Notes" in the department of musical reviews, not daring to address you directly, on the occasion of his modest literary position and personal _m_a_l_o_i_z_v_e_s_t_n_o_s_t_i, asks I will outline to you the following , _sh_o_p_o_t_o_m expressed complaints. To date, he (i.e., the columnist) _p_o_s_t_a_v_i_l_ you have three articles. The first went well; the second was completely distorted and as if with intent; in the third, exceptions were made and such _o_p_e_ch_a_t_k_a_ crept in (left without correction contrary to your promise) , that it is impossible to understand the thought of the ill-fated observer (namely, instead of “it has come _in_e_ya_n_i_e_ nationality”, it is printed “it has come _in_the_e_k_i_e_ nationality”). _P_o_s_t_a_v_sh_i_k_ Yours instructed me to respectfully report to you that he has been placed in the most perfect _t_u_p_i_k_ by the exceptions made in the third article. In his extreme conviction , in articles intended for Fatherland Notes, only such views and phrases that directly contradict the basic principles of this periodical may be subject to exclusion. Так, например, следовало бы исключить, если бы сотруднику Вашему вздумалось бы восхвалять _к_р_е_п_о_с_т_н_и_ч_е_с_т_в_о_ или порицать выборное начало или утверждать, что только _б_е_л_а_я_ _д_в_о_р_я_н_с_к_а_я_ _к_о_с_т_ь_ может производить на свет людей даровитых. There is also a tendency in your magazine that has appeared for some time now, namely: extreme _p_r_e_z_r_e_n_i_e, reaching almost to hatred of everything Russian, probably justified by your famous saying about Gogol: And how he loved - while hating. But this is not a fundamental principle, but a feigned and, I hope, transitory view - and yet, by the grace of this view, you have excluded a whole tirade in three half-sheets, beginning with the words: “Until Russian society in its entirety is imbued to the marrow with the feeling own national dignity , until then Russian art will remain in humiliation." Then the whole description was released of how our unfortunate choristers, having memorized the German "Lohengrin", walked with their heads hanging, and how they perked up when they heard the familiar Russian melodies, and what a warm ovation they gave the Czech Napravnik at rehearsals 57. All this was written not without intention, but as a clear proof that indeed in some strata of Russian society the dawn of nationality has come again. This exception was made, I believe, as a result of the above-mentioned _n_a_p_u_s_k_n_o_g_o_ view, and in this case there is still some reason. But, one wonders why the news was crossed out (on page 22 of the manuscript) that Berlioz was discharged to St. Petersburg as a dependent of Elena Pavlovna 58 and that the Dargomyzhsky circle showed him the most refined, sympathetic attentiveness? - Why (on page 29) the remark was excluded about the strange way of consoling Minin and further about the incongruity of the peasants' ranting while a defenseless stranger is being attacked by robbers. Why was what was said about the situation in the girls' choir of Act 3 (p. 31) excluded, etc., etc. You say that “o_b_o_z_r_e_n_i_e” is not a story, and therefore there is nothing to be ashamed of with blots. But a story can be brightened up with style, description, and the most entertaining adventures, but here it’s all about grouping the facts, the ability to distribute them, in some ways that give the facts some relief. Forget for a moment that you are Jupiter the Thunderer or the complete ruler of the democratic kingdom called “Responsible Zap”, and put yourself in the place of a writer. How offended you would be if someone decided to exclude from your poem the eleven verses repeated three times: Roman said: to the landowner, Demyan said: to the official, etc., etc. These verses are repeated three times: in the exhibition, during a fight and at a meeting with priest - To a diligent _v_y_ch_e_r_k_i_v_a_t_e_l_yu_ this repetition might seem unnecessary, but meanwhile this is nothing more than strengthening _a_k_k_o_r_d_a_ and the development of harmony, i.e., a technique used in all artistic musical works, which is also necessary in a poem, since the poetic form, known as poems, there is something between music and words. In _p_o_e_m_e_ it is combined _g_a_r_m_o_n_i_ya_ _z_v_u_k_o_v_ _s_ _m_y_s_l_y_yu; and if an insensitive person throws out even one line from it, then he can, without even realizing it, disrupt the entire harmonic order. It is quite possible that _s_u_r_o_v_y_m_ _r_e_a_l_i_s_t_a_m_ the wonderful picture on page 214 will seem unnecessary - “The men asked the priest - the priest answered, what more! Realists will probably say, but here some clouds hung to the ground, and skeins of gold thread were hung ". For their taste, it is perhaps unnecessary, but for us, sensitive people, it would be extremely offensive... In general, it is not clear how there are people who decide to do this without ceremony with difficulty, with thought and the very dignity of another person. And then there are some other people who dare to proclaim that some people in power are using their official position for evil in order to impose their works on journalists. - Yes, in Western journalism they don’t treat penniless employees as unceremoniously as we do with seasoned people! _P_o_s_t_a_v_sh_i_k_ _o_b_o_z_r_e_n_i_y_ instructed me to thank you for the timely notification of _new_p_o_t_r_o_b_n_o_s_t_i_ article for the February book - however, he did not intend to start writing without receiving from you a new formal statement that in his articles they would not cross out what was in it is directly contrary to the main ones ( above) principles of the journal you publish.

All yours F.T.

On January 29, 1869, Nekrasov, apparently, immediately wrote to F. Tolstoy, and he responded to this letter, unknown to us:

It turns out that I absolutely do not know how to clarify my thoughts - or you do not want to understand me. In articles submitted to your journal, you have every right to cross out anything that goes against the basic principles of the journal, but I rebel only against arbitrary exceptions without _o_b_o_u_d_n_o_g_o_ _s_o_g_l_a_s_i_ya. Often you can sacrifice whole pages and hold fast to one word; and it seems to me that when the author is at hand, such an agreement does not present the slightest difficulty. I know that you do not need my writing, but why should we part if it is so easy to arrange things by mutual agreement? Now I have no time to write about Dargomyzhsky, and I only remind you that it would not be bad to talk about theaters , say a few words about the loss suffered by the Russian musical world 59 . In any case, I remain sincerely devoted and loving to you. P.S. By the way: where did the manuscript of the novel you know go? Zvonarev undertook to publish at his own peril and on certain conditions to which the author agreed. -What's the matter? But he could never maintain the same style in relations with people for a long time, precisely because of the instability of his psychology, and in the very next letter his reproachful and plaintive tone is replaced by a cheeky and playful one. I don’t understand “what a cat ran between us,” dear and precious Nikolai Alekseevich! I visited you three times, and each time I asked you to tell me that it would be very desirable to see you. - But alas! No answer, no greetings from you! How did I upset you, tell me, my angel! I was about to put these verses on new music and forward it to you instead of a message, but I realized that, probably, none of your employees are involved in despicable music and will not be able to sing my brilliant composition. That's why I visited you so persistently. Besides the pleasure of seeing you and exchanging a word with others, I wanted to find out what happened to the manuscript you know. My chick is worried. The author's pride suffers severely. The first work is dear to the author’s heart, and it’s a pity to see the young man’s grief (and completely in vain). Where could the manuscript really have gone? Zvonarev wanted to publish it at his own peril, after all, you are not compromising yourself in any way - and finally - if you don’t even want the novel to be published by Zvonarev - then this too can be settled differently - after which what's the matter?

Yours F. Tolstoy

Obviously, after Nekrasov’s second and final refusal to publish the story “Misunderstanding” in Otech. Zap. F. Tolstoy, contrary to his statement that he considered this matter “finished” (see letter 12 above), again turned to Nekrasov, asking him to help print the manuscript, at least from S.V. Zvonarev. Is this not the explanation for the cheeky, friendly tone that permeates this letter? Nekrasov, in all likelihood, considered himself forced to agree to Feofil Tolstoy’s request and even offered to pay the author the penalty from his own funds that he had proposed earlier (see letter 5). In addition, he apparently expressed his willingness to bear half the cost of publishing this book. All this is evidenced by the following undated note from Theophilus Tolstoy: I consider the penalty unnecessary for the reasons stated above, to no one, and I cannot accept the costs in half on the same basis. I agree with everything else. Signature > and the terms will be signed at any time. The year 1869 turned out to be the period of the closest business relations between Feofil Tolstoy and Nekrasov, when he could really lay claim to some of the poet’s favor, since it was from that time that he finally became his obedient agent for the protection of Otech. Zap. from all censorship misfortunes. From month to month, at all meetings of the Council, he acts as a defender of each book of the magazine, as an officially assigned observer. When, for example, censor N.V. Lebedev raised the issue of legal prosecution of the October book of the magazine, where G.Z. Eliseev in an extensive article demanded at least partial liberation of the press from censorship, Feofil Tolstoy stated in his review: “... Inconsistent the rantings of the author of the said article cannot bring any harm" 60. In 1869, he not only did not repeat his last year's instructions on the continuity of the updated "Otech. Zap." _s_o_ _s_t_r_a_sh_n_o_p_a_m_ya_t_n_y_m_ “Contemporary”, but, on the contrary, indicates, contrary to the obvious, that this connection has already been broken: “In my reviews for last year<...>I found that in Otechestvennye Zapiski at that time their close relationship with the former Sovremennik began to be visible. This year the satirical tone<...>gave way to a more restrained direction" 61. There was a conscious distortion of the truth here, since it was in 1869 that "Father. Western "became much bolder in the propaganda of revolutionary ideas - and there is no doubt that this testimony in favor of the magazine, disorienting the authorities, was given by Feofil Tolstoy at the suggestion of Nekrasov and Shchedrin. With the same unremitting zeal, he performed his household duties in 1869 censor "Otech. Zap.", looking through the proofs of each book and warning the editors in advance about the need to remove or weaken the most dangerous parts of the works published there. It is possible that it was about the October book "Otech. Zap." for 1869 is discussed in the following letter from Theophilus Tolstoy: Dearest Nikolai Alekseevich! I cannot perform miracles and I am not able to look at _this_ book in a few hours. Besides, today is the day of the birthday of Vera and others, and I will be fluttering around. However, I hope that everything will turn out well. Since Vera, according to the Orthodox calendar, had a birthday on September 17, we date the letter on this day, leaving the annual date in question. Sometimes, to cover up his double game, F. Tolstoy spoke in the Council with attacks against one or another too “perky” article published in Otech. Zap.”, but immediately informed those against whom he spoke in confidence: “There is reason to hope that my statement will not lead to any punitive measures.” At the same time, he tried to serve not only Nekrasov and Shchedrin, but also the owner of Otech . "Zap." All these important services Feofil Tolstoy received the opportunity to publish his notes on music in two of the most influential organs: in Otech. Zap." and in the newspaper of A. A. Kraevsky "Golos" 62 . Obviously, the printing house of A. A. Kraevsky, where Otech. Zap was printed, began sending Feofil Tolstoy reprints of proof sheets as the material accumulated. He carefully read the sheets and reported to Nekrasov about every page that could cause the displeasure of the censorship department. Having read, for example, the February book "Otech. Zap." for 1870, he sent Nekrasov the following letter: The printing house continues to treat me _n_a_ch_a_l_a_m_i_ without _k_o_n_ts_a. It is absolutely impossible to read and view this way. - You can’t follow the general meaning. - So today they sent the ending of “Our Societies of Affairs”, and I was looking at the beginning the third day. - How can I remember the connection?! Your employee in the social affairs department is a smart person, but too perky. On page 371, he proclaims, for example: for giving a slap in the face, you can always count on _n_a_ _p_o_v_y_sh_e_n_i_e_ and that having received a slap on the bald head, you can occupy whatever position you want, even _p_r_e_d_v_o_d_i_t_e_l_y_s_k_u_yu. Please tell me, what is so charming about this? After all, this is nonsense that can only harm a serious magazine. Is it worth counting on the smile of a dozen fools! I advise you to re-read the article about Herzen carefully. - There are so many _s_k_r_e_zh_e_t_a_ _z_u_b_o_v_n_o_g_o_ and such _p_r_o_z_r_a_ch_n_o_e_ _p_o_k_l_o_n_e_n_i_e_ before the authority _v_e_l_i_k_o_g_o_ _ch_e_l_o_v_e _k_a that it’s unlikely to go in vain “From Zap”. I ask you to return to me the sheets marked in pencil, otherwise I will have to re-read everything from board to board, and you will agree that this is unnecessary work. In this letter, Tolstoy draws Nekrasov’s attention to two passages in Demert’s monthly chronicle “Our Public Affairs,” where, under the heading “Judges are fighters and tyrants,” the following was, among other things, published: “It is inconvenient for only those of the fighters who have received a slap in the face, and the one who slaps others in the face can always count on a promotion.” It was this phrase that F. Tolstoy took up arms against. But Nekrasov did not take into account his instructions: it was completely preserved in the journal 63. The second instruction was more serious, and the editors of Otech.Zap. could not help but take him into account. In the same public chronicle, Demert tried to note the recent death of Herzen. The liberal and reactionary-protective press responded to this event with a number of articles trying to discredit and reduce the political significance of the great revolutionary. The newspapers portrayed him as a good fiction writer who wasted his talent on fruitless revolutionary nonsense. Demert spoke out against these vulgar obituaries in his February review. Obviously, at the beginning this speech was much more harsh, as evidenced by the typographical appearance of the article: pages 375 and 376 were printed more quickly than all the others - some notes were made in them, probably the same ones that F. Tolstoy pointed out in the above letter. “Adoration for the authority of a great man” was very thickly shaded; All that remains is this ending: “Every thinking person who is not afraid to speak the truth knows very well that the late Herzen is not only a remarkable writer of fiction, but simply historical fact, which will subsequently be impossible to bypass." 6 4. In the same month, Nekrasov asked Feofil Tolstoy to speak about Beaumarchais’s famous preface to the comedy “A Crazy Day or The Marriage of Figaro,” which the editors of Otech. Zap." intended to be published in a new translation. This preface was quite consistent with the direction of "Otech. Zap.", especially since it contained merciless attacks against censors and courtiers. Theophilus Tolstoy decided the issue of printing the preface in a negative sense, and tried to cover up his censorship veto with highly hypocritical arguments: as if every reader of "Father. Zap." was obliged to read French and know Beaumarchais by heart!

In my personal conviction, in Beaumarchais’s preface there is nothing not only contrary to the provisions of the 6th April, but even against the law. In literary and historical terms, this is the preface. Of course, it is of some interest, but in a purely literary sense, it seems to me, none. The author, _o_m_m_e_n_t_i_r_u_yu_sh_i_y_ and praising his own work, cannot, in my opinion, convince of the superiority of his creation. This is permissible for the eccentric Al Dumas, but unworthy of the author of The Marriage of Figaro. It is unlikely that it will be useful to reproduce at this time in Russian the said preface, written, as the French say, “après” and explaining and justifying the brilliant work, long ago _p_o_n_ya_t_o_e_ by all and sundry. However, if you think it would be useful to publish Beaumarchais’s comedy in a new translation, then for the sake of completeness of the publication, a preface is not superfluous; but the question is: is such a publication timely? and would it be appropriate under the present circumstances and in your journal? I would solve this question in a negative sense, and for the following reasons. _V_o_-_p_e_r_v_y_x: every Russian reader, more or less educated and knowledgeable French, knows “The Marriage of Figaro” by heart no worse than “Woe from Wit” - and therefore does not need translation.-- V_o_-_v_t_o_r_y_x_: there is no way to convey exactly, _b_e_z_ _i_z_m_e_n_e_n_i_y_ all the subtleties of Beaumarchais’s speech in Russian. - _In_-_t_r_e_t_i_x_: it is unthinkable to release anything from the comedy, and meanwhile, given the _de_e_l_i_k_a_t_n_o_m_ position of your magazine, a tirade about censorship is unlikely to be convenient. I present all this for your consideration, - for me personally, all interest is now focused on the continuation of the story “Who should live in Rus'.” Please accept the assurance of full respect, etc.

F. T_o_l_s_t_o_y

12 f Feofil Tolstoy had to spend especially a lot of effort to save the October book of the magazine for 1870, since the head of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs himself was the retinue of E.V. Major General M.R. Shidlovsky found several “harmful” articles in this book and intended to declare Otech.Zap. warning. On this occasion, Theophilus Tolstoy wrote to Nekrasov: Today, according to the proposal of the Central Committee, made on the basis of a person known to you, the fate of 10 No. “From Notes” will be decided. Yesterday I worked all day, trying to logically prove the injustice of the criticism. - God will give something! Come see me tomorrow, but _k_a_k_ _ch_e_s_t_n_o_g_o_ _ch_e_l_o_v_e_k_a _p_r_o_sh_u_ You must not tell anyone about this notice - neither Kraevsky, nor Eliseev, nor Saltykov. You can ruin the whole thing... "Famous person" - M. R. Shidlovsky. The date of the letter is established on the basis of the fact that in the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs the discussion of the tenth book "Otech. Zap." for 1870 it occurred on October 23. You can believe Theophilus Tolstoy that he really “worked all day” preparing his defensive speech. The censorship committee considered four works published in the October book to be especially harmful: 1) “Essays on the mental development of our society 1825-1860” by A. M. Skabichevsky, where the subtitle indicated that Herzen would be characterized in one of the further chapters; 2) article by N. K. Mikhailovsky - “Voltaire the Man and Voltaire the Thinker”; 3) “Nightingales”, a poem by N. A. Nekrasov and 4) “Our public affairs” by N. A. Demert. F. Tolstoy dedicated his speech to the Council to these four works. Regarding Nekrasov’s “Soloviev,” he said that “he finds absolutely nothing reprehensible” in them and that “the poet should be blamed for confining free groves, in which there are no nets or snares for birds, to such ideal areas, in of which there would be no taxes or conscription would mean laying a heavy hand on poetry in general" 65 . About Mikhailovsky’s article he said that it was “elusive for prosecution”, about Skabichevsky’s article - that it “cannot serve as a reason for warning”, etc., and in conclusion he indicated (again in the interests of Nekrasov) that the direction The magazine would have been much more moderate if the poet had been approved by the government as the executive editor. As you know, Nekrasov has been seeking precisely this approval for two and a half years. In the end, the magazine book was saved. We date the next letter from Theophilus Tolstoy to 1871, since it was written about Nekrasov’s poem “Grandfather Mazai and the Hares,” published in the January book of 1871. Your bunnies, Nekrasov, are better than tasty snipes; Reading them, I was touched - And even, horror! teared up! This may be stupid - but, alas! despite my _s_t_a_r_h_e_s_k_i_e_ summer - I am as impressionable as a child. The slightest manifestation of talent, the slightest smell of poetry washes me away like one of your bunnies in a water field. What you are saying may be impossible, but your dumbfounded bunnies are so picturesque, and the good nature of Grandfather Mazai is so touching that I feel an irresistible need to thank you from the bottom of my heart. Christ is with you and may He deliver you from warnings and other misfortunes. Several months passed, and F. Tolstoy again began to impose "Otech. Zap." alien to them literary material: the story “Secular People” by the young author Butenev, whom he protected. As can be seen from the letter printed below, he began by forcing the poet to listen to several excerpts of the proposed story. Nekrasov, who at that time especially needed the administrative support of F. Tolstoy, was obviously forced to say a few approving words about what he read and even promise that he would publish the story in the magazine. Soon after this, the poet left for Karabikha (to write the first part of “Russian Women”) and there he received the following letter from Theophilus Tolstoy: I was waiting for you in our _b_o_l_o_t_a_ around the 15th of this month, but I learned from A. A. Kraevsky that you were not You'll be here before the beginning of August. This confused me greatly and here's why. The story about which I told you and from which I read several excerpts to you that earned your approval is brought to an end, and the young author hoped to submit it to the editor before August 1st. For my part, knowing your commitment, I assured him that, without the slightest obstacle, having received the completed manuscript, you would not refuse to pay him in advance the due fee according to the calculation. As a result of this assurance, he is happy to do so. It would be very regrettable to postpone this trip, because such an opportunity may not arise another time. That is why I decided to turn to you with the most humble request: would you find it possible to instruct someone to extradite _p_o_d_ _m_o_yu_ _r_a_s_p_i_s_k_u_ _t_y_s_ya_ch_u_ _r_u_b_l_e_y_ advance payment for the story proposed for publication. According to a rough estimate, the story will take about 17 sheets; assuming that the reduction (which we agreed upon when meeting with you) will be up to three sheets - it will remain clean 14, i.e. . in the amount of 1050. If you do this favor for my young _p_r_o_t_e_zh_e, then in any case I guarantee you for the correct delivery of the manuscript, which, according to the contract, I would like to hand over only to you personally - for reasons already known to you. the continuation of the story is not only not weaker, but much more interesting and better than the excerpts read to you. I look forward to your answer.

All yours F. Tolstoy

July 14, Tsarskoe Selo Address: in Tsarskoe Selo, on Magazinnaya Street, Dolgova House. Not receiving an answer from Nekrasov, F. Tolstoy sent a second letter to Karabikha, where he tried to attract Nekrasov’s sympathy for the story by the fact that this story supposedly has a democratic connotation, quite consistent with the direction of Otech.Zap. A week ago, I wrote to you that _and_z_v_e_s_t_n_a_ya_ _V_a_m_ _p_o_v_e_s_t_t_ is over, and asked you to find a way to send a thousand rubles, since the young author intends to take a very interesting trip to _g_o_l_o_d_a_yu_shch_u_yu_ _P_e_r_s_i at the beginning of August _yu, under conditions and under circumstances that another time and perhaps they won’t meet. However, I had the imprudence to entrust this letter to our dear Andrei Alex., who, due to his characteristic selfishness, pays little attention to the execution of orders even from those people who constantly show him every kind of courtesy. Next, it is quite possible that this letter did not reach you, because I am convinced that you are a person of a different temperament - and would not have left my letter unanswered. I am sending my present message directly to Yaroslavl (Karabikha) and am awaiting your response. You have repeatedly been convinced in practice that my artistic and literary tact is as developed as possible. - You told me this more than once. - So trust me this time too. — The story, which you accepted “buona fida” only on faith, turned out to be really very successful. - It masterfully outlines personalities that have not yet appeared in modern literature. These are not the same _s_v_e_t_s_k_i_e_ _l_yu_d_i that Sologub, Panaev and tutti quanti exhibited. -- No! - these are the people of our time, that is, people who _in_o_l_e_yu_ _not_e_v_o_l_e_yu_ are painted with democratic redness, as a piece of white cloth is painted that has lain for a long time in the same chest side by side with a piece of red cloth. The very essence, that is, the weft of matter, remains the same, but the ebb is different. This gives great _p_i_k_a_n_t_n_o_s_t_t_ to this story. “All these people sense that something is happening around them that has never happened before.” They are not averse to talking about important matters, they are not averse to being touched by the unfortunate, poverty and lack of education _m_e_n_sh_e_y_ _b_r_a_t_i_i, but the original weft remains the same, and at the slightest whiff of the former social life they are carried aside. - For this, a pretty, but certainly elegant, face, a salon gathering, an ostrich waltz and the like are enough. In order to describe this properly, it was necessary to be imbued to the marrow with the spirit of salon life - and to be disappointed to the depths of the soul, having become convinced of the fuss of such a life. Moreover, this story contains so many things that it is impossible to doubt that it was written here and not in some Baden-Baden. As a result of all of the above, I can boldly say that you will repent if this story does not end up in “From the Note”.

F. Tolstoy

July 21 Address: in Tsarskoye Selo, on Magazinnaya Street, Dolgovaya House. Nekrasov did not respond to both last letters (dated July 14 and 21). A few days later, F. Tolstoy addressed him with a new letter, where, as a new argument in favor of publishing "Secular People", he pointed out... the need to snatch their author "from the cold embrace of the empty-mouthed elite" - as if "Father Zap." published by Nekrasov for such a charitable purpose!

You left two of my letters without any answer. - From this it should be concluded that you, most respected Nikolai Alekseevich, are a man of the same caliber as your gentleman Andrei the First-Called 66. “It is known that this worthy man will not lift a finger in favor of a person who climbs the wall to do what pleases him.” - You obviously want to follow this good example, with the difference that you, at least in words, _m_i_g_k_o_ _s_t_e_l_e_t_e_ and also do not do it. You know how deeply I take to heart the work of the young writer you know. - I told you how much work it took me to snatch this young man from the cold embrace of the empty-mouthed _b_o_m_o_n_d_a. “I managed to achieve this goal by encouraging him to pursue literary pursuits.” - Believe me, that the story that you have already accepted in words is incomparably higher than “Ogonyok”, therefore, you have no reason to refuse this word. But in any case, why do you leave my letters unanswered? Really, I didn't deserve this. The proposal _a_v_a_n_s_a_ cannot, I think, make it difficult for you, but then a circumstance came up like a planned trip to Persia - a trip that, I hope, will finally knock my young writer out of the nasty rut _v_e_l_i_k_o_s_v_e_t_s_k_o_s_t_i. If my proposal is not convenient for you, then why not say directly - “I can’t” and that’s all. “I would have found another way, but now time is passing, and I am doing nothing while waiting for your answer.” If you are here, then make an appointment with me for a final explanation. I'm in town today and will probably stay until 6 1/2 o'clock. Just to see you and get something over with. Our consultation will continue until 3 1/2 hours, and then I am at your service. I ask for an answer, all B

F. Tolstoy

July 27, 67 The meeting with Nekrasov, which F. Tolstoy sought in this letter, could not take place, since the poet was still in the village, where he was working hard on “Russian Women.” The “Council” that F. Tolstoy speaks of at the end of his letter is the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs. Two weeks before this letter was written, one small event happened to Theophilus Tolstoy, which, as it later turned out, played a sad role in his official and literary career. This event began with the fact that the then head of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs, Mikhail Romanovich Shidlovsky, went abroad on vacation and, until he returned from vacation, F. Tolstoy was placed at the head of the department and, in his own words, turned out to be “the caliph of the hour." Of course, the publisher of the newspaper "Golos" Kraevsky hastened to take advantage of this temporary power of his closest employee and obtained from him one important benefit, which in magazine circles aroused everyone's envy: thanks to Feofil Tolstoy, the newspaper "Golos" got the opportunity to print reports on what was happening then "Nechaevsky case" a whole day earlier than some other newspapers, which, of course, brought considerable profit to Kraevsky. This privilege outraged Trubnikov, the editor of Birzhevye Vedomosti, to such an extent that he published an editorial in his newspaper that openly denounced Theophilus Tolstoy for his selfish patronage of Golos. “The post of Mr. Shidlovsky,” Trubnikov wrote in this article, “was temporarily occupied by a person who was quite well known in the literary world, as an employee of one of the St. Petersburg daily newspapers, and who had even more occasions to gain fame in the musical world under the pseudonym Rostislav.. " Further, hiding behind a question form, the author speaks out against F. Tolstoy with the following accusation: "Will not the desired general proximity of a famous person to literature translate into patronage of one of its organs and is it generally convenient to occupy at the same time the post of manager of press affairs and be considered an employee of a newspaper, that is, enjoy certain material benefits from it? 68. The Main Directorate for Press Affairs immediately forced the editors of Birzhevye Vedomosti to print an official refutation of this article by Trubnikov 69 . But he did not calm down and the next day came out with a new editorial (of equally extensive size), where he fully supported his accusation “of nepotism in the office with the editor of a famous newspaper” 70 . Thus, around the name of Theophilus Tolstoy, a loud scandal , and through his own fault, the institution that was temporarily entrusted to his leadership was drawn into this scandal. One can imagine how great Shidlovsky’s rage was when information reached him that the institution he headed, in his absence, had been compromised by F. Tolstoy. And, as luck would have it, this fuss arose at the very time when F. Tolstoy, taking advantage of his official position, was going to commit exactly the same act again: to impose “Secular People” on Nekrasov. However, Trubnikov’s revelations did not stop F. Tolstoy at all. At the very height of the scandal, as is clear from the letter printed below, he insisted on the speedy publication of the “forced” story. But, of course, Trubnikov’s revelations prompted him to be extremely cautious. The entire letter is permeated with fear that someone might find out that he, Feofil Tolstoy, had something to do with the publication of Butenev’s story. My traveler went on August 7th to Persia to observe the starving people of this fertile, but unsettled kingdom. In addition to the five hundred rubles issued by Zvonarev, I loaned him the same amount? - you can't get away with it. To comply with strict _i_n_k_o_g_n_i_t_o_ - money was received from Zvonarev against the receipt of a friend of Mr. Butenev. The completely finished manuscript is with me, and I will hand it over to you from hand to hand. - Since it is rewritten quite clearly, you can read it and mark in pencil those places that you recognize as necessary to exclude altogether or shorten. Just, for God’s sake, don’t trust this matter to anyone else, they’ll ruin it for a penny! Rely on my artistic flair and political tact. I repeat that this story fits the program “From Zap”. There is only nothing outrageously rude in it, like Nikitin’s “long-suffering”, but the emptiness of the so-called secular people is mercilessly branded 71. By mutual agreement between you and me, we will shorten that , which will be subject to reduction without removing the color - and then leave supervision of the proofs to anyone - but with an indispensable condition: correct only spelling typos and nothing more. Do not send proofs to me at all, otherwise the printing house will immediately blow the whistle about it. There would be a lot to talk about with you, and I would be very glad if you keep your promise and come to Tsarskoe on Monday; but in that case, notify me by telegram what time to expect you, so that I can be at home. If you wish, I will I’ll send you a carriage - just in case, here’s my detailed address: Magazinnaya Street, Dolgovaya House, third building on right hand from the Hospital. The only dacha on the street with a front garden. Goodbye - I'm waiting for the telegram.

F. Tolstoy

August 14 Of course, “Feofilka” had previously tried to keep secret the literary bribes that he extorted from the editors of Otech. Zap. Even when signing for royalties for his own articles about music, he noted that the royalties were intended for some other person. One of such receipts is in our collection: “Ninety-four rubles for an article published in the November book OZ entitled Russian Opera was accepted by me for delivery to the author. F. Tolstoy. October 17th.” But now, after Trubnikov’s revealing articles, he redoubled his caution and took measures so that even the printing house would not suspect his special interest in publishing the story “Secular People.” It is characteristic that, extorting literary bribes from Nekrasov and Kraevsky, imposing on them his own and other people’s writings, which they published only because he was a representative of the authorities, pursuing a double-dealing policy, he tried to convince himself and others, with the help of all kinds of sophisms, that he - an incorruptible person, selflessly and even selflessly serving the interests of his native word. “I must admit that in literary matters I play the role of Don Quixote,” he wrote to Kraevsky in 1869 72 . Now this “Don Quixoticism” has been brought to light by Trubnikov. True, Kraevsky made a weak attempt, defending his newspaper from the attacks of Birzhevye Vedomosti, to shield Feofil Tolstoy: in the next issue of Golos, in the department of the capital’s chronicle, one of the newspaper’s feuilletonists ridiculed the loser Trubnikov, and it is unknown on what basis, compared him with the nymph Calypso, who held Odysseus captive, and in conclusion added an ambiguous and very indistinct phrase: “Perhaps precisely due to the fact that now<...> the post of head of the press department is temporarily occupied by a person who has himself worked in the literary field, the Russian press is obliged to take care of the interests of newspaper editorial offices" 73 ... This objection did not answer the main question: why did Theophilus Tolstoy's "concern" extend only to those of the newspaper editorial offices where he received a fee? Under the influence of all these upheavals, failures and insults associated with Trubnikov’s revelations, F. Tolstoy wrote a long letter to Nekrasov, full of reproaches and complaints: Strange, as you might think, I represent an anomaly, or, more correctly, _u_r_o_d_s_t_v_o_ in the environment of modern humanity!.. The people around me are sworn egoists, and I bend over backwards to please everyone and everyone. - Because of the interests of my native printed word, I bring myself into trouble at work: I spend my nights reading proofs , not subject to me at all, and I stand up for the writing brethren. So what? Suddenly, from around the corner, a _sh_a_v_k_a_-_T_r_u_b_n_i_k_o_v_ rushes at my feet and barks to all of Russia that, out of partiality, out of selfish motives, I am abusing the power temporarily entrusted to me and I act dishonestly. Trubnikov categorically asserts that leaving a person close to literary affairs at the head of the press department is _in_r_e_d_n_o!! And what? I repeat - our literary world, which knows very well, one must assume that I am an incorruptible person and always ready to serve the literary cause, - leaves Trubnikov’s impudent act without objection. - Only A_n_d_r_e_y_ _P_e_r_v_o_z_v_a_n_ny_y_y lets one of his feuilletonists lightly attack "Bir Ved" and gets off with jokes in which he mentions Calypso... Other journalists are silent and are not even surprised that "for disclosing disgraceful circumstances for an official", a misdemeanor , stipulated (Article 639) regarding punishments, Trubnikov was not brought to justice. “If anyone had said about the activities of General Sh even half of what Trubnikov said about me, he would have been killed.” This circumstance alone is enough, it would seem, to attract to me the sympathy of our literary world and to prove that the influential participation in the affairs of the Main Directorate of a person close to literature is useful and not harmful, as Trubnikov claims. - The question arises: what prevented our journalists from categorically refuting Trubnikov’s lies, slander and wild judgment about a question that interests all literature? I'll tell you what. Fear that journalists will not be convicted of _z_a_i_s_k_i_v_a_n_i_i_ and for conniving before those in power. For the same reason, at the time they attacked Pisarev for paying attention to my stories, while he sincerely recognized the benefits of psychiatric research in the public court that emerged among us. - For the same reason, your reviewers do not say a word about me, but write entire pages in praise of the brothel writer Gleb Uspensky. My play “The Stepson” is degraded by the local press to the point of abomination - while it goes around all all-Russian theaters - not only provincial, but also district (Last playbill July 23, 1871. Kolomen troupe of actors under the direction of G. Lvov (without the name of the Author, while the play was printed with my full name). .). I protest in print against the distortion of titles and against the arbitrary names of authors (entrepreneurs, for greater importance, put on posters either the name of Count Tolstoy - the author of "Prince Silver", or the name of Potekhin), and our magazines remain silent and do not pay the slightest attention to my protests. - I print in "Rus Starina" living pages from posthumous, one might say, my notes, in which, like in a mirror, the Glinka and Bryullov eras are reflected. - In Moscow, these "Notes" are read loudly even in clubs, and here (in magazines) about them _n_i_ _g_u_g_u, with the exception of the howler Stasov, who led all the intrigue against me during her time - and now, of course, cursed both me and my memories. - It seemed: I would spit and turn away at the sight of such a constant and stubborn ill-will, and I continue to _u_s_e_r_d_s_t_v_o_v_a_t_t, because literature constitutes the _p_l_o_t_t_ _i_ _k_r_o_v_b_ of my vile being. Long ago I should have been convinced that the people around me are notorious egoists - and I keep hoping that maybe they will do something for me too. Can you, for example, _c_i_t_i_r_o_v_a_t_y_ at least one case of refusal on my part? Have I not always fulfilled your wishes? Meanwhile, you know how interested I am in the manuscript of the story I delivered to you. You know how much I value your views from an artistic point of view and, despite this, you cannot muster the strength to read a voluminous story and tell me frankly your opinion about it. The matter does not seem to be a puzzle. To please you, I read hundreds of proofs, reading them on time, at night and with utmost attention, weighing every word. Here you could slowly and without the slightest trouble satisfy my desire. - You may object that you have to look through the proofs of the story. But we agreed, _in_o_-_p_e_r_v_y_kh, that amendments and exceptions should be made in _r_u_k_o_p_i_s_i_ - after recruiting there would remain, so to speak, only mechanical labor, i.e. e. correction of typos, which you can entrust to any proofreader. And, _v_o_-_v_t_o_r_y_x: don’t I really deserve for you to do something to please me personally??! Reading my scribbles, you will curse me, I know - but such is my nature. If I don’t do well, then displeasure will weigh heavily on my soul, but now that’s okay. I spoke out and for this I remain the same who loves you and is devoted to you August 23, 1871 Tsarskoe Selo In a word, this selfless official of the censorship department really felt like a righteous man, suffering for his virtues. The final part of the letter again talks about the story “Secular People”, the manuscript of which Nekrasov, as can be seen from the lamentations of Theophilus Tolstoy, has not yet read. From the next letter, written a week later, we are convinced that the poet, for reasons unknown to us, agreed to publish in his magazine the work imposed on him by F. Tolstoy, “without even getting to know it thoroughly.” In order to attract the sympathies of the democratic reader of the 70s to this salon work, F. Tolstoy offered Nekrasov his draft of a short preface to the novel. Below we reproduce this extremely naive project, which Nekrasov, of course, did not take advantage of. Skabichevsky’s article, which is discussed in the letter, never saw the light of day at the time. This article was a chapter of an extensive work, published under the title “Essays on the Mental Development of Our Society” in many books of Fatherland Notes. The chapter was dedicated to Herzen. Despite the fact that Theophilus Tolstoy considered it possible to publish this chapter, it was cut out by censorship, subsequently destroyed a separate edition of the said work by Skabichevsky, and could only be published by him much later.

It’s been a long time since I sent Evgeniy Alexander a proofreading of Skabichevsky’s article and an explanatory letter. “I’m surprised that he didn’t tell you anything.” Not knowing that you had returned, I asked him today (by mail) whether he informed you of our correspondence for proper information. The fact is that Shid assures that he _n_i_k_o_m_u_ _n_i_k_a_k_i_h_ did not give any instructions regarding the article and that in any case _a_r_e_s_t_u_e_t_ _k_n_i_zh_k_u, if it contains at least _o_d_n_a_ _s_t_r_o_k_a, personally owned by the author _g_o_s_u_d_a_r_s_t_v_e_n_n_o_g_o_ _p_r_e_s_t_u_p_n_i_k_a. Here are his words. As for me, I find it possible to publish an article with the exception of the extract from Herzen in Form 5 and with the exception of the ending where Herzen is mentioned as a political figure. It's unfortunate, but necessary. If I comply with what I have indicated, the book cannot be seized, because bringing it to trial is unthinkable, and if Sh requires a warning, then this will only prove the validity of the saying: “Do not interfere with my morals.” It is in vain that you call my previous letters _s_t_r_o_g_i_m_i_ _v_y_g_o_v_o_r_a_m_i. This is nothing more than the _v_o_r_ch_a_n_i_e_ of an old man complaining about human injustice. - I complain about the attitude - unfair, in my opinion, of all journalism in general towards me - but you personally, that is, the editor of Ot Zapiski, the successor of the late Sovremennik, cannot do otherwise. I am aware of this. If you decide to publish “Secular People” without thoroughly familiarizing yourself with the story, so be it. In my extreme conviction, this story cannot harm Ot Zap. But wouldn’t you consider it useful to explain why you are publishing a story in your magazine that treats the actions of our _b_o_m_o_n_d_a_? On this occasion I have jotted down a few thoughts, which I leave for your consideration. I shake your hand in a friendly manner 1 s

Appendix to letter 31

Recently, stories and novels from the everyday life of the upper class have gone out of fashion with us. The reason for this is partly the colorlessness of that environment, which is called high society, and, most importantly, the spread of education and enlightenment in the middle strata of our society. The number of writers belonging to the middle strata, increasing more and more every year, has finally taken over, since in order to depict the environment being described it is necessary to be intimately familiar with it, most of the fictional works appearing today wisely bypass descriptions of the upper circle of our society. We were perplexed whether to publish the proposed story "Secular People". Will its appearance in Otechestvennye Zapiski be taken as an anachronism? But after thinking about the content of the story, we decided to publish it for the following reasons. Firstly, the young author of this story is obviously briefly familiar with the morals, customs, techniques, language and environment of the circle he describes, which is already an inalienable advantage for a work of fiction. Secondly, he treats objectively and without the slightest partiality the “secular people” he introduced in the story, and thirdly, he sympathetically and consciously treats episodic individuals from the common people and the middle classes in the story. Consequently, the proposed story does not have that narrow one-sidedness that distinguished the previous stories of everyday life writers of our elite, and, among other things, shows, ex professio, the attempts of this circle to comprehend life and give it a more serious meaning in view of the ongoing forward movement of Russian thought. Before publishing the story “Secular People,” Nekrasov read it in proofs and crossed out some passages. This caused the following objections from Theophilus Tolstoy: I don’t want to quarrel with you, and, it seems, you shouldn’t quarrel with me. - I am forced to give in to circumstances, but I remain unconvinced and do not see the horrors that you see in the scene you reject. At least make the connection properly. You excluded the chatter or jokes of the coachmen and left the following phrase: “Thinking over the coachman’s words, Kolosovich,” etc. Then suddenly it comes out of the blue (after the line): “Gromov’s greenhouses,” while neither the reader nor Kolosovich knows that skating is scheduled in these greenhouses. I, of course, trust your taste in poetic works, but I also trust my own reading, so I wrote hundreds of pages of prose and re-read all French, English, German and Italian fiction in the original. I repeat - do whatever you want. P.S. I don’t know anything about our case yet, but I have already sent my release from observation. A postscript to this letter means that, in order to avoid further misunderstandings associated with Trubnikov’s revelations, Feofil Tolstoy (perhaps on Nekrasov’s advice) appealed to the head of the censorship department with a request to release him from official supervision of Otech.Zap. Of course, this statement was a pure formality. No one would prevent Theophilus Tolstoy from continuing his secret service as the home censor of the same magazine. But things turned out much worse. It began with the fact that on October 11, 1871, the Ministry of Internal Affairs received a secret letter from the chief of gendarmes and the head of the Third Department N.V. Mezentsov about the eighth (that is, August) book "Otech. Zap.", in which an article by emigrant Bartholomew was published Zaitseva "Essays on French Journalism", praising "famous French figures Demoulins, Robespierre and Danton, as well as the French Resolution of 1789." 74. Having learned about this secret letter (in all likelihood, from V.M. Lazarevsky), Nekrasov turned to Theophilus Tolstoy for help, and, apparently, suggested to him the arguments that he could give in defense of the “malicious” article. Tolstoy followed Nekrasov's instructions. I wrote M 75 a detailed, detailed letter in which all the circumstances were set out almost in the same sense as they were stated by you, I even attached _V_a_sh_e_ _p_i_s_m_o to my letter, explaining that there can be no secrets in our Department, since every word and every thought , expressed by _p_o_ _d_e_l_a_m_ _p_e_ch_a_t_i, affect the interests of _and_n_t_e_l_l_i_g_e_n_ts_i_i_ of all Russia. As an example, I pointed out that the newspapers had already announced the banning of Dumas's play. In conclusion, I ask _k_a_k_ _o_s_o_b_u_yu_ _d_l_ya_ _m_e_n_ya_ _m_i_l_o_o_s_t_ to cancel the majority ruling. I don't have an answer yet. As for proofreading, I don’t agree with you at all. There is no falsehood here, and even if there were, the trouble would not be great, and you never know how much falsehood, much larger, appeared in the works of fiction published on the pages of “O Notes.” Kolosovich in this scene is not funny at all - but this, on the contrary, is a deep psychological trait. “Don’t you know that an all-consuming, intrusive thought can make a person go stupefied, and that in this case sometimes he decides to ask not only an intelligent coachman, but even a small child about a subject that interests him.” You are bad psychologists, gentlemen - whatever you think! However, no matter what you shorten, you will not disarm the hostility and ill will of those people who see in literature only the Darwinian question of the struggle for existence. As a result, I remind you that you have pledged your word of honor and signature not to exclude anything without my consent, and I urge you to send me the proof of the entire second part. - I will mark in ink what will be subject to exclusion. Do not blame me - I ask you urgently, because in the first part some mistakes were made against psychology and aesthetic feeling. In the second half of this letter we are again talking about the story "Secular People". Alexey Kolosovich, the main character of this story, is in love with a noble, beautiful girl and wants to marry her, but due to the machinations of his former mistress, he dies from transient consumption. The story was published in the October and November books of Otech.Zap. It was signed with a pseudonym: A. Chernolesov, behind whom the above-mentioned “protégé” of F. Tolstoy, the young aristocrat Butenev (possibly the son of the famous diplomat A.P. Butenev) took refuge. It is characteristic that, apparently, for the sake of the direction "Otech. Zap." Kolosovich is depicted as a poor landowner, “sympathetic” to the ideals of the 60s. He is passionate about the cause of public education and fights for a democratic, independent court. At the same time, the whole story is written in a tabloid-romantic spirit: “Her eyes sparkled, her nostrils flared and an expression of poisonous joy and malicious triumph spread across her face. She glared at Kolosovich. She devoured him with her eyes, she drenched him from head to toe a chilling stream of deadly hatred." This style seemed especially wild in Otech. Zap. against the background of realistic novels and stories by Saltykov-Shchedrin, Gleb Uspensky, Reshetnikov. It is not difficult to imagine with what reluctance the editors of the magazine published this “forced” story. However, the dependence of "Otech. Zap." from Theophilus Tolstoy was already coming to an end. There was no doubt that after Trubnikov’s revelations, the Ministry of Internal Affairs would use the first pretext to get rid of the compromised official. This pretext was very soon found. In the same October book "Otech. Zap.", which published "Secular People" by Chernolesov (Butenev), Nekrasov's famous satire "Recent Time" appeared. The satire contained the following “daring” lines: However, to be an adjutant general, Wear jewelry on your chest - With less knowledge, with less talent, it is possible. .. your path ahead is bright! The then Minister of Internal Affairs A.E. Timashev was very wounded by these lines, for he was an adjutant general, and his entire chest was dotted with “decorations.” To his misfortune, F. Tolstoy began to defend this poem too zealously in the Council, not realizing that he was thereby inflicting a grave offense on the minister. In his extensive speech, he pointed out, among other things, that the word adjutant general was inserted here “for verse” and “to maintain local color” > and that in political terms, Nekrasov’s satire is “completely innocent”!>. This clearly inspired speech by Theophilus Tolstoy, so to speak, overflowed the cup. On October 24, 1871, the Minister of Internal Affairs wrote on the very sheets on which the opinion of “member of the Tolstoy Council” about Nekrasov’s “Recent Time” was stated: “I ask the head of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs to explain to the gentlemen members of the Council about the complete inconvenience of that method observations to which Otech. Zap.", the editors of which, as I know, consider themselves completely protected from legal responsibility, since the articles they published were previously approved by a member of the Council" 76 . After such a resolution, Feofil Tolstoy had only one thing left - to resign, after which influential official The censorship department immediately turned him into a small literary fry, devoid of any prospects or hopes. Below we present a letter in which he notifies Nekrasov of his dismissal.

Your Majesty
Nikolai Alekseevich!

Let me thank you for your flattering attention to me. — November No. “O Z” came out a few days ago, but I haven’t received the issue yet and probably won’t get it. Let me remember at the same time that, firstly, you promised 30 prints of the story known to you, which have probably been ready for a long time, but I have not yet received these prints. Secondly, you told me that you saved the _r_u_k_o_p_i_s_b, which I would ask you to return. Finally, judging by the reprints previously sent, the author of the story owes about 120 rubles, if I’m not mistaken, which it would be fair to give him. I was dismissed from service under the State Administration, which I do not regret, since under the present circumstances I could not be useful to the Russian word. But I deeply regret the sad lack of attention that those for whom I worked most hard show me. Please accept the assurances of our respect and devotion 20 n On the back of the last sheet, in pencil, by Nekrasov’s hand, the following entry was made: On Vish st to the merchant Medvedev per Nikolai Afanasyev Soon after the censorship department dismissed Theophilus Tolstoy, the editors of the newspaper "Golos", where he worked very diligently, informed him that from now on they no longer needed his feuilletons and that in general the entire musical and theatrical the department is transferred to the management of another person. By this she emphasized that she published his articles against her will. Nekrasov was also freed from him. The last article by Theophilus Tolstoy about music appeared in the December book "Fatherland Zap." (in a heavily corrected form), and from then on collaboration in this magazine became unavailable to him. This is the usual fate of a person playing a double game. As soon as he is exposed as a double-dealer, both camps expel him - both the one he cheated on and the one he secretly served. This is in the order of things, but it is characteristic that F. Tolstoy, continuing to insist on his selflessness, portrayed himself as an innocent victim of human ingratitude and malice. Not wanting to admit that the publication of his articles in Otech. Zap. was a disguised bribe, he turned to Nekrasov with a new letter. I wrote to you, dear Nikolai Alekseevich, that I cannot begin to compile an article for the next No. “Aries Z” without meeting with you or Mr. Saltykov. I need to know what is finally required of me. What is excluded in my last article does not have the slightest shadow of a polemical character; here only a fact is stated that is generally known in our musical world and which is impossible for anyone writing about our musical affairs. The same Mr. Saltykov missed a purely polemical article in June 1870, in which I exposed Stasov’s uninvited interference in our affairs. For what reason is my thought now altered - without asking and after proofreading and signing by me? You won’t be nice to me by force - after all, if you don’t like my articles, then I won’t force them on you; but you must agree that under the circumstances known to you, this is more than regrettable. Solve as you like, but for me _v_r_e_m_ya_ _d_o_r_o_g_o, - and I ask you to declare me a positive way: whether you want or not my cooperation on the previous grounds, that is, with an indispensable condition, not to change in my articles that _n_p_r_e_d_o_s_s_d_i_t_e_l_n_y_n_y_n_e_e_e_y_n_y_n_y_n_i_n_y_y_n_y_y_n_y_y_n_y_y_n_ in censorship. I cannot have such deviations. A. A. Kraevsky also wants to let me down, apparently. Well. That's what I expected. The lemon is squeezed and the peel is discarded. All this is completely in the spirit of our time, but the fact is that I need literary work now, and if I am not useful to either you or Golos, then I need to quickly look for somewhere to find shelter. Accept the assurances of complete respect and integrity. 22 d 1871 Nekrasov did not respond to this letter. A few days later, F. Tolstoy bitterly complained to Kraevsky: “Nekrasov did not pay the slightest attention to my most humble request to notify me what is required of me? What is allowed and what is forbidden to me? My most humble request was transferred by the master to Mr. Saltykov for discussion, and the great Shchedrin, in recompense for the labors I incurred during my ill-fated _n_a_b_l_yu_d_e_n_i_i_ for his bilious fabrications, which I bore, one might say, on my shoulders, left my request unanswered. He achieved his goal, because, without receiving an answer and not being honored meetings with neither him nor Shchedrin, I must consider myself excluded from cooperation.” Both resignations coincided, like cause and effect. Only by pretending to be infinitely naive could this longtime ally of Bulgarin, enemy of Chernyshevsky, detractor of Reshetnikov and Gleb Uspensky, be able to portray the matter as if he really had no idea why the only reason he was given “shelter” in the journal of Shchedrin and Nekrasov... The published letters illuminate for us in a new way some of the features of the complex and flexible tactics with which Nekrasov carried the ideas of his revolutionary-democratic “party” into the censored press for many years preserved its printed organs. With extraordinary completeness and clarity, they reveal to us in the image of Theophilus Tolstoy what those representatives of the censorship department were like with whom Nekrasov had to communicate inevitably in the interests of his great cause.

Notes

1 “Russian memorable people. Notes and memories about the work of Ya. N. Bantysh-Kamensky “Dictionary of memorable people.” (From the collection of S. D. Poltoratsky).” -- "Russian Antiquity", 1892, VII, 30. 2 Letter from A.S. Sheremeteva to her parents. - "Archive of the village of Mikhailovsky", II, issue. 1, 39. 3 Letter from A. Ya. Bulgakov to his daughter - book. O. A. Dolgoruky dated September 25, 1833 - "Russian Archive", 1906, II, 76--77. 4 F. Tolstoy. Regarding the notes of M.I. Glinka. -- "Russian Antiquity", 1871, IV--VI, 421--456. 5 M. Glinka. Notes. M.-L., 1930, 80 and 89. 6 “Friends”. Album by M. I. Semevsky. St. Petersburg, 1888, 29 and 103. 7 Letter from A. Ya. Bulgakov to his brother dated October 25, 1833 - "Russian Archive", 1892, I, 608--609. — Theophilus Tolstoy’s father, M.F. Tolstoy, was married to Kutuzov’s daughter. -- A.F. Lvov. Notes. -- "Russian Archive", 1884, III, 87. 8 A. Serov. A few words about Rostislav’s brochure: “A detailed analysis of M. I. Glinka’s opera “Life for the Tsar”.” -- "Moskvityanin", 1854, XXIII, 139--146. 9 V. Stasov. Collection op. St. Petersburg, 1894, I, 799--800. 10 Ibid. 11 Letter from V.V. Stasov to M.A. Balakirev dated December 12, 1868 “Correspondence between M.A. Balakirev and Stasov.” M.--L. 1925, 260. 12 Letter from M. P. Mussorgsky to M. A. Balakirev dated January 26, 1867 - Mussorgsky. Letters and documents. M.--L., 1932, 539--540. 13 Letter from A.P. Borodin to E.S. Borodina dated October 5, 1873 - Borodin. Letters, M., 1936, II, 50--51. 14 P. Usov. From my memories. -- "Historical Bulletin", 1882, I, 121--123. 15 A. Serov. Parisian Feofilychi. -- "Theatrical and Musical Bulletin", 1860, IX. 16 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Nekrasov and the literary policy of the autocracy. -- "Literary Heritage", 49--50, M., 1946, 480. 17 N. Leskov. Heraldic fog. Notes on generic nicknames. -- "Historical Bulletin", 1886, VI, 600 (note). 18 Letter from V.V. Stasov to E.N. Purgold. "Russian Thought", 1910, VI, 176.-- The text of "Raika" is published in the book: Mussorgsky. Letters and documents. M.--L., 1932, 164--165. See also N. Findeisen, “Stabat Mater” by A. H. Serov. - "Russian Antiquity", 1893, IV, 82. 19 Letter from M. I. Glinka to K. A. Bulgakov dated July 23, 1855 - M. Glinka. Notes. St. Petersburg, 1883, 357. 20 "Notes of Count M. D. Buturlin." - "Russian Archive", 1897, III, 526. 21 Letter from I. A. Goncharov to A. N. Tsertelev dated September 16, 1885 - I. A. Goncharov. Literary critical articles and letters. L., 1938, 332. 22 "Russian Antiquity", 1887, VII, 144--145. 23 Letter from A.K. Tolstoy to M.M. Stasyulevich dated October 28, 1868 -- "Stasiulevich and his contemporaries", St. Petersburg, 1912, II, 316; letter from A. N. Tsertelev to M. M. Stasyulevich. Ibid., 402; A. Kondratiev, Count A. K. Tolstoy. Materials for the history of life and creativity. St. Petersburg ., 1912, 67--68 and many others. 24 F. T. Smoker of the sky. - "Russian World", 1874, No. 273. 25 Rostislav. Night at the tomb of the deceased Emperor Nicholas I of blessed and eternal memory - "Northern Bee", 1855, II (was reprinted in many newspapers of that time). 26 Rostislav. Musical conversations. - "Northern Bee", 1854, April 19, No 185. 27 Rostislav. The false wisdom of Chernyshevsky's heroes. - “Northern Bee”, 1863, May 27, No. 138. “There are individuals,” the article said, “inviolable due to their special position” (this was a clear hint that Chernyshevsky was arrested). The article ended with the following words: “They say that Mr. Chernyshevsky received four thousand from the editors of Sovremennik for his exemplary work. The figure is respectable and honors both the generosity and legibility of the venerable editors. But here’s the problem. Mr. Chernyshevsky would not have gotten richer. .." 28 See manuscript in State. library named after Lenin (36/151) "Nihilists in home life. Dramatic and philosophical essays in 3 acts and 10 scenes with an epilogue. Op. N... N... (From the novel by Mr. Chernyshevsky "What to do?")." On the last page of the manuscript in the hand of N. S. Leskov, against the name N... N... it is written: F. M. Tolstoy. “This script,” writes N. S. Leskov at the very end, “was composed by a member of the Main Board for Press Affairs, Feofil Matveevich Tolstoy, and was given to me by him for imitation...” 29 N. Shchedrin (M. E. Saltykov). Complete collection soch., M., 1937, V, 121--132. 30 F. Tolstoy. Sky smoker. -- "Russian World", 1874, No. 276. 31 Rostislav. Musical conversations. -- "Northern Bee", 1854, No. 134. 32 A. Serov. A few lines about Rostislav's brochure... - "Moskvityanin", 1854, XXIII, 139--146. 33 See, for example: F. Tolstoy. Memories about the "Notes of M. I. Glinka." -- "Russian Antiquity", 1871, IV--VI, 421--456. 34 Letter from F. M. Tolstoy to A. V. Druzhinin dated January 6, 1863 - “Letters to A. V. Druzhinin.” Ed. State literary museum. M., 1948, 313--314. 35 K. Putilov (Pisarev). Educated crowd. -- "The Case", 1867, III and IV (Collected works. D.I. Pisarev. St. Petersburg, 1894, VI). 3 6 V. Figner. Captured work. M., 1929, I, 42. 37 F. T. Smoker of the sky. -- "Russian World", 1874, No. 276. 38 V. Evgeniev-Maksimov. D.I. Pisarev and guards. -- "The Voice of the Past", 1919, I--IV, 145--146. 39 That is, a search, since in 1866 M. N. Muravyov began to involve guards officers in this gendarmerie work. 40 "The Trial" (1867). 41 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Uk. cit., 476. 42 V. Zotov. Petersburg in the forties. -- "Historical Bulletin", 1890, IV, 97--98. 43 Nekrasov V, 246. - The words of Theophilus Tolstoy, indeed, turned out to be “chatter”: “Notes of a Hunter” were allowed only in 1859. 44 See, for example, the note: S.P. “New drama on the Moscow stage.” -- "Our Time", 1862, November 30, No. 259. 4 5 N. Turin. Moscow letters. I. - "Sovrem. ", 1863, I--II, 163--176. 46 A commentator on the works of N. Shchedrin erroneously points in this case to the story "Captain Toldi", published in Sovremennik in 1851 (N. Shchedrin. Complete collection of works . M., 1937, V, 451). “Captain Toldi” is not an original story, but a translation from French. 47 V. Evgeniev-Maksimov. The last years of Sovremennik. L., 1929, 164--166. 48 C V. Zvonarev was at that time an employee of Nekrasov. In 1864 and in 1869, Nekrasov published his “Poems” under the company of “bookseller S. V. Zvonarev.” Zvonarev’s bookstore was located at the office of Sovremennik. 49 Nekrasov, V, 439. 50 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Uk. soch., 479. 51 N. Shchedrin. Complete collected works., M. 1937, VIII, 383. 52 Gleb Uspensky, Stop. The story of a passer-by. - "Father . Zap.", 1868, VII, 63--92. 53 The same expression is found in the first edition of the essay "Lightweight": "The thought becomes numb at the sight of painted coffins, loudly calling themselves the pillars of the world" (See N. Shchedrin. Complete collection. cit., Leningrad, 1935, VII, 503). We take this opportunity to point out the fallacy of N.V. Yakovlev’s commentary on one of Shchedrin’s letters to Nekrasov dated March 21, 1868 (N. Shchedrin, Complete collected works. M.-L. 1937, XVIII, 428). Assumption commentator that the essay “Lightweight” was subjected to a preliminary review by F. M. Tolstoy, is refuted by the latter’s letter to Nekrasov, which we publish. 55 Compare the text of “The Old Pompadour” in “Otech. Zap." (1868, XI) with the text of the Complete Works of N. Shchedrin (L., 1934, IX). 56 "Otech. Zap.", 1868, XII, 343. 57 In F. Tolstoy's article about St. Petersburg theaters, among many other notes, there was a brief report on E. Napravnik's new opera "The Nizhny Novgorod People." 58 "In 1867, while in Paris, the leader. book Elena Pavlovna invited Berlioz for six concerts of the Russian Musical Society in St. Petersburg, offering him a fee of 15,000 francs, in addition to providing for all his expenses for travel and stay in the capital. The concerts took place during the 1867-68 season." . -- "Bulletin of Europe", 1881, X, 536--537. 59 We are talking about the death of A. S. Dargomyzhsky, which followed on January 5, 1869. 60 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Uk. cit., 482. 61 Ibid., 483. 62 "Otech. Zap.", 1869, I, III, VI. 63 "Otech. Zap.", 1870, II, 371. 64 Ibid. 65 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Uk. cit., 462. 66 “Andrew the First-Called”, here and below, the author of the letter calls A. A. Kraevsky. 67 This letter was published with the wrong date: “July 29” (without a year) in the “Archive of the Karabikha Village” (M., 1916, 210-211). The same incorrect date is indicated in the collection "Manuscripts of N. A. Nekrasov", published by the All-Union Library. V. I. Lenin (M. 1939, 63). Meanwhile, it is known that meetings of the Council of the Main Directorate for Press Affairs took place on Tuesdays, and since Theophilus Tolstoy’s letter was written on the day of one of these meetings, we read the illegibly signed number under this letter not as nine, but as seven (for the next Tuesday was exactly July 27th). 68 "Stock Exchange Gazette", 1871, July 16, No. 192. 69 "Stock Exchange Gazette", 1871, July 18, No. 194. 70 "Stock Exchange Gazette", 1871, July 19, No. 195. 71 "Long-suffering", which F. M. Tolstoy contrasted the story “Secular People” - this was the title of Nikitin’s essays from the life of the cantonists, published in Otech. Zap., 1871, VIII, IX and X. The essays depict the brutal violence to which the cantonists were subjected in military barracks . 72 B. Papkovsky and S. Makashin. Uk. cit., 480. 73 "Voice", 1871, July 12, No. 197 ("Leaflet"), as well as No. 199 of July 20 of the same year. 74 N. Ashukin. Chronicle of the life and work of N. A. Nekrasov. M.--L., 1935, 393. 75 To the Minister of Internal Affairs - Alexander Egorovich Timashev. 76 For the autograph of this resolution by A.E. Timashev, see: “Literary Heritage”, 49--50. M., 1946, 473.