120 years ago the church announced the excommunication of Leo Tolstoy

However, if Tolstoy the artist is certainly considered a genius, then his religious views have always caused and continue to cause great controversy. A century after the death of the thinker, in a variety of political discussions there is a return to the questions posed by Tolstoy. Moreover, there is talk of a revival of Tolstoyanism. To understand the historical realities behind this, we turned to priest Georgy Orekhanov, who recently defended his doctoral dissertation on the relationship between Leo Tolstoy and the Church.

Anathema or excommunication?

— Father Georgiy, the story of the writer Kuprin is widely known about the proclamation of anathema to Leo Tolstoy right in the church during the service and that the rebellious deacon, who had been reading Tolstoy all night before, on the contrary, proclaims to him many years. Tell me, how does the story correspond to historical reality? Was everything like that?

- Of course not. This is entirely the fantasy of Alexander Kuprin, which, however, has become very popular. It should be borne in mind that this story by A. I. Kuprin was published in 1913, that is, not only long after the synodal act itself, but even after the death of L. N. Tolstoy. Obviously, it is a deliberate literary hoax. The fact is that the synodal act on February 20-22 was not read in churches. It was published in the Church Gazette, and then reprinted by all leading Russian newspapers. Therefore, the alleged public anathematization of Tolstoy during a church service is a complete fabrication.

We must understand that the synodal definition regarding Tolstoy is not a curse on him, not a desire for harm to the great writer or his eternal destruction. The Church simply stated that Tolstoy was no longer a member of the Church, because he himself wanted it. Moreover, the synodal act of February 20-22 stated that Tolstoy could again return to the Church subject to repentance. However, Tolstoy himself, his entourage, and the majority of Russian people perceived this definition as some kind of unjustifiably cruel act. When Tolstoy arrived in Optina Pustyn, when asked why he didn’t go to the elders, he replied that well, of course, I was excommunicated.

Leo Tolstoy with his sister, nun Maria. Yasnaya Polyana. Photo from the ITAR-TASS archive.

— What was the reason for the Synod’s decision regarding Leo Tolstoy, which stated the writer’s falling away from the Church?

— Because after his so-called spiritual revolution, Tolstoy begins to publish religious treatises in Europe, devoted to sharp criticism of all aspects of church life: dogmatic teaching, the Sacraments, the clergy. This theme is already heard in the Confession, as well as in the treatise devoted to a new reading of the Gospel, and in other works. In them, he sets out his religious ideas, which run counter to Orthodox doctrine. For example, the writer categorically denies the Trinity of God, the Resurrection of Christ, considers Him only a Man, and not God, and denies the need for Church Sacraments.

At the same time, the Church has repeatedly emphasized Tolstoy’s wrongness. Representatives of the Church entered into correspondence with the writer on this matter, met and talked. Let's say, in the fall of 1879, when the writer's new views were fully determined, L. N. Tolstoy met in Moscow with hierarchs authoritative in the theological circle - Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and Bishop Alexei (Lavrov-Platonov), and in early October 1879. in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra with Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), and also makes a trip to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. It is well known that in Optina Hermitage L.N. Tolstoy repeatedly had the opportunity to talk with elders who said: what Tolstoy preaches is neither Orthodox nor Christianity in general, but Tolstoy did not agree with this.

However, in the 1880s, and even in the early 1890s, the issue of excommunication did not yet arise seriously. The treatises became widespread only in Europe, and in Russia handwritten and lithographic copies were passed around. Thus, the Russian reader was not widely familiar with the religious ideas of L.N. Tolstoy. And the Church did not want a loud scandal and did not consider it necessary to attract much attention to his errors. Everyone understood: Tolstoy is such a significant figure that any harsh definition of this kind could cause a public scandal. Which, in fact, happened then.

However, the situation changed radically after Tolstoy published the novel “Resurrection.” It was released both in Russia (with large censorship restrictions, of course) and in Europe, with huge circulations. That is, this time many Russian readers became acquainted with the novel. “Resurrection,” among other things, contained a grotesque, or rather, blasphemous, depiction of the Eucharist. In fact, Tolstoy began to directly mock the most sacred thing, the Church Sacraments. After this, the Church found itself in a very difficult situation. It was no longer possible to remain silent. An ambiguous situation has arisen - Tolstoy calls himself a Christian, but at the same time treats the Church, its Sacraments and church teaching with contemptuous ridicule. What to do? And so, when in 1900 the relatively young bishop, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), became the leading member of the Synod, the decision matured to give a definition about Tolstoy. But it was clear that it could not be put into a very rigid, categorical form. Notice that the words “anathema” and “excommunication” are missing from this definition. However, it unequivocally states that Tolstoy has alienated himself from church communion, and therefore can no longer be considered a member of the Church, that is, he cannot participate in church sacraments, in case of death he cannot be buried according to the Orthodox rite, and so on.

- But still, from a canonical point of view, what was it: excommunication, anathema, something third?

— In form, this is a rather mild statement of the fact that Tolstoy cut himself off from church communion, “an external semblance of excommunication,” as Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) later explained, but in terms of the canonical consequences for him, this is, of course, excommunication.

— Are excommunication and anathema generally the same thing or not?

— There are different types of church excommunication. Anathema is its most severe form. In the church tradition, excommunication, or anathema, historically meant the most severe of church punishments, indicating the separation of the guilty person from the Body of Christ and his condemnation to eternal destruction. Of course, anathema also implies complete exclusion from participation in church Sacraments, first of all, from participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. One should distinguish from anathema the temporary excommunication of a Church member from church communion, which serves as punishment for less serious sins. Few people probably know that the writer Gorky was excommunicated for 7 years for attempting suicide. For Gorky himself, however, this did not matter at all, because he, although formally a baptized Orthodox man, was in fact very far from the Church.

Thus, anathema is in some sense a global excommunication, which is proclaimed not just for some specific sin committed, but for active, conscious opposition to the Church and its teachings. Temporary excommunication is a prohibition to participate in the Sacraments for a period of time, which can be quite long. For example, in the ancient Church, for special sins, for example, murder or fornication, people were excommunicated from church communion for very long periods. But this is not anathema yet. Anathema is excommunication for conscious and bitter struggle with the Church and church teaching. As a rule, in ancient times anathema was imposed on heretics, on those who actively fought against the Church. This was done after exhortations and denunciations from the Church had taken place, when the person continued to persist and say things that were absolutely incompatible with Church teaching. This was exactly the situation with Tolstoy.

—Who else in Russian history was anathema proclaimed?

— It should be emphasized that in Russian history anathema was always proclaimed very restrainedly and cautiously and only in relation to irreconcilable instigators of schisms or heretics. These are the cases: Strigolniki, Novgorod heretics of the 14th century, Dmitry Tveritinov and his supporters, iconoclast heretics of the early 18th century. In addition, church anathema was proclaimed for serious crimes against the state, which were almost always accompanied by an attack against the Church - here we can recall Grigory Otrepyev, Ivan Mazepa, Stepan Razin. By the way, on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, anathematisms against certain groups of heretics imposed by the ancient Church are listed. In the middle of the 19th century, in 1869, specific names were finally removed from this rank, but these heresies themselves are named.

— Why was only Tolstoy awarded such an “honor” at that time? After all, many baptized Russian people then held similar views.

“A person can think and even say whatever he wants, and he cannot be excommunicated from the Church for this.” But Tolstoy didn’t just think and didn’t just talk, he disseminated his views in huge numbers. Moreover, he did this after it was pointed out to him that his views categorically did not correspond to church teaching. But I think that even this might not have led to Tolstoy’s excommunication if he had not begun to laugh at what is most dear to a believer, the Liturgy. Here, of course, the Church could no longer remain silent.

Why was L.N. Tolstoy excommunicated from the Orthodox Church?

Why was L.N. Tolstoy anathematized? During a creative and spiritual crisis, Tolstoy spoke of the church as a corrupt institution in which the personal beliefs of officials were promoted.

In “The Mediator,” Leo Tolstoy wrote about Orthodoxy:

“... I renounced the church that calls itself Orthodox, this is absolutely fair.

But I renounced the church not because I rebelled against the Lord, but on the contrary, only because I wanted to serve him with all the strength of my soul.

Before renouncing the church and unity with the people, which was inexpressibly dear to me, I, having some signs of doubting the correctness of the church, devoted several years to studying theoretically and practically the teachings of the church:

theoretically - I read everything I could about the teachings of the church, studied and critically examined dogmatic theology; in practice, he strictly followed, for more than a year, all the instructions of the church, observing all fasts and attending all church services.

And I became convinced that the teaching of the church is theoretically an insidious and harmful lie, practically a collection of the grossest superstitions and witchcraft, completely hiding the entire meaning of Christian teaching.

One has only to read the breviary and follow those rituals that are continually performed by the Orthodox clergy and are considered Christian worship,

to see that all these rituals are nothing more than various methods of witchcraft, adapted to all possible cases of life...

... I reject God, in the Holy Trinity the glorious creator and provider of the universe, I deny the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-man, redeemer and savior of the world,

who suffered for us for the sake of men and ours for the sake of salvation and rose from the dead, I deny the seedless conception of Christ the Lord after humanity and the virginity before and after the Nativity of the Most Pure Theotokos.

The fact that I reject the incomprehensible trinity and the fable of the fall of the first man, which has no meaning in our time, the blasphemous story of a god born of a virgin redeeming the human race, is absolutely fair...”

Lev Tolstoy

writer

Didn't step over

— What was the general history of Tolstoy’s relationship with the Church? Did he immediately become her enemy?

- No, of course, not right away. For Tolstoy, everything went in waves; he experienced several spiritual crises during his life. The most severe crisis occurred in the late 1870s and early 1880s, when Tolstoy was trying to become, to put it simply, an Orthodox person. He goes to services, prays, and participates in the Sacraments. The last time in his life Tolstoy took communion was in April 1878. And after this, he suddenly realizes that Orthodox doctrine and Orthodox life, including liturgical life, are alien to him. In “Confession,” he sets out in detail the history and reasons for his divergence from the Orthodox Church.

The writer made such attempts to become a member of the Church several times. Tolstoy came to Optina Pustyn at least six times during his life, met with Elder Ambrose and other elders, and talked with them. But after a spiritual revolution, which Tolstoy himself dates to 1881, he decided for himself that his whole life was divided into two parts - what happened before 1881 and after 1881. After this, he firmly and consistently distances himself from the Orthodox Church.

— Before his death, did he also visit Optina Pustyn?

“Unfortunately for all of us, he did not find the strength to cross the threshold of the Optina monastery, where he could have met two wonderful elders who were there at that moment - Elder Joseph (Litovkin) and Elder Barsanuphius (Plikhankov). There is a very interesting description of witnesses, two Optina novices who saw with their own eyes how Tolstoy approached the Optina Hermitage monastery several times, but something prevented him from being the first to enter the monastery and ask for a conversation. Then he told his sister that if they called him, he would go. This was approximately 10 days before his death, at the end of October 1910. He left Yasnaya Polyana on October 28 and arrived in Optina Pustyn. Later he went to Shamordino to visit his sister, nun Maria, after which he went by rail, and it seems that he himself did not really understand where, and was forced to get off at the Astapovo station due to illness.

Funeral of Leo Tolstoy. Yasnaya Polyana. 1910 Photo from the RIA-Novosti archive.

-Where did he go?

“But where he went is still a big question for researchers.” Either he wanted to go to his followers somewhere in the south, or somewhere else.

— Why didn’t the monks themselves invite Tolstoy to cross the threshold of the Optina monastery? Or did they just not know he was coming?

- It’s also not entirely clear. The fact is that Elder Joseph, with whom Tolstoy was personally acquainted and with whom he apparently had a warm relationship, was very ill at that moment. Either he simply couldn’t go to see him due to his physical condition, or they didn’t tell him that Tolstoy had arrived. This meeting, unfortunately, did not take place. But when Tolstoy himself was already lying sick at the Astapovo station, Elder Joseph sent a telegram from Optina Pustyn that he was ready to go to him for a conversation. And the very big trouble is that the people surrounding the sick Tolstoy at that moment did not show him this telegram.

- Who is this?

— This is, first of all, Vladimir Grigorievich Chertkov and the youngest daughter of the writer Alexandra Lvovna. It must be said that Alexandra Lvovna later repented all her life that Tolstoy was not told that Elder Barsanuphius had come to him with the Holy Gifts. He was also not shown not only Elder Joseph’s telegram, but also several other telegrams from the bishops. For example, in a telegram from the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), it was said: “From the very first moment of your break with the Church, I incessantly prayed and pray that the Lord would return you to the Church. Perhaps He will soon call you to His judgment, and I now beg you, sick, to be reconciled with the Church and the Orthodox Russian people. God bless and keep you." Tambov Bishop Kirill (Smirnov), former vicar of Bishop Anthony, also sent his telegram, in which he spoke of his readiness to arrive at the Astapovo station.

- Why weren’t Tolstoy told about all this?

— The official version of the people surrounding the writer was that the sick writer, who had double pneumonia and high fever, could not be bothered. They said that if Tolstoy found out that Elder Barsanuphius had arrived, and if they met, it could agitate him so much that his situation would worsen. But I really doubt it. In my book “The Russian Orthodox Church and Leo Tolstoy” I provide testimony from doctors who wrote about how Tolstoy’s illness progressed. And just on the day when the elder arrived, Tolstoy’s fever subsided and his situation improved. In general, it is difficult to imagine how the meeting for which he himself sought could worsen his physical condition.

— The writer’s youngest daughter, Alexandra Lvovna, also did not sympathize with the Russian Church?

— At that moment, yes, because she was under the great influence of Chertkov, who was always very far from the Russian Church. But Alexandra Lvovna’s position subsequently changed seriously. This is also evidenced by the fact that she quarreled with Chertkov. In addition, after the revolution she was imprisoned more than once, and was even in one of the first camps, which was located on the territory of the Novospassky Monastery. And there is information that in the early 1920s she began to change her attitude towards the Church. In exile, Alexandra Lvovna becomes an Orthodox person. Her confessor was the future Bishop Vasily (Rodzianko), who left interesting memories about her, published in the magazine “New World”. When she died in 1979, her funeral service was performed by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said at the funeral a wonderful word that the Church mourns together with Alexandra Lvovna and members of Tolstoy’s family about what happened to the great writer.

The Church mourns Leo Tolstoy

What was behind the famous excommunication of Tolstoy from the Church? Why was the Church forced to take this step? What is Tolstoyism and what is Tolstoy’s role in the Russian Revolution? We are talking about this with the vice-rector of the Orthodox St. Tikhon Humanitarian University, Doctor of Church History, Priest Georgy Orekhanov1 .

Today we can talk about a real surge of interest in the figure of Leo Tolstoy. Not long ago, the feature film “The Last Resurrection” was shown on Channel One, which caused a lively discussion. Filming of the British film “Anna Karenina” starring Keira Knightley and Jude Law is in full swing.

However, if Tolstoy the artist is certainly considered a genius, then his religious views have always caused and continue to cause great controversy. A century after the death of the thinker, in a variety of political discussions there is a return to the questions posed by Tolstoy. Moreover, there is talk of a revival of Tolstoyanism. To understand the historical realities behind this, we turned to priest Georgy Orekhanov, who recently defended his doctoral dissertation on the relationship between Leo Tolstoy and the Church.

Anathema or excommunication?

— Father Georgiy, the story of the writer Kuprin is widely known about the proclamation of anathema to Leo Tolstoy right in the church during the service and that the rebellious deacon, who had been reading Tolstoy all night before, on the contrary, proclaims to him many years. Tell me, how does the story correspond to historical reality? Was everything like that?

- Of course not. This is entirely the fantasy of Alexander Kuprin, which, however, has become very popular. It should be borne in mind that this story by A. I. Kuprin was published in 1913, that is, not only long after the synodal act itself, but even after the death of L. N. Tolstoy. Obviously, it is a deliberate literary hoax. The fact is that the synodal act on February 20-22 was not read in churches. It was published in the Church Gazette, and then reprinted by all leading Russian newspapers. Therefore, the alleged public anathematization of Tolstoy during a church service is a complete fabrication.

We must understand that the synodal definition regarding Tolstoy is not a curse on him, not a desire for harm to the great writer or his eternal destruction. The Church simply stated that Tolstoy was no longer a member of the Church, because he himself wanted it. Moreover, the synodal act of February 20-22 stated that Tolstoy could again return to the Church subject to repentance. However, Tolstoy himself, his entourage, and the majority of Russian people perceived this definition as some kind of unjustifiably cruel act. When Tolstoy arrived in Optina Pustyn, when asked why he didn’t go to the elders, he replied that well, of course, I was excommunicated.

— What was the reason for the Synod’s decision regarding Leo Tolstoy, which stated the writer’s falling away from the Church?

— Because after his so-called spiritual revolution, Tolstoy begins to publish religious treatises in Europe, devoted to sharp criticism of all aspects of church life: dogmatic teaching, the Sacraments, the clergy. This theme is already heard in the Confession, as well as in the treatise devoted to a new reading of the Gospel, and in other works. In them, he sets out his religious ideas, which run counter to Orthodox doctrine. For example, the writer categorically denies the Trinity of God, the Resurrection of Christ, considers Him only a Man, and not God, and denies the need for Church Sacraments.

At the same time, the Church has repeatedly emphasized Tolstoy’s wrongness. Representatives of the Church entered into correspondence with the writer on this matter, met and talked. Let's say, in the fall of 1879, when the writer's new views were fully determined, L. N. Tolstoy met in Moscow with hierarchs authoritative in the theological circle - Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and Bishop Alexei (Lavrov-Platonov), and in early October 1879. in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra with Archimandrite Leonid (Kavelin), and also makes a trip to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra. It is well known that in Optina Hermitage L.N. Tolstoy repeatedly had the opportunity to talk with elders who said: what Tolstoy preaches is neither Orthodox nor Christianity in general, but Tolstoy did not agree with this.

However, in the 1880s, and even in the early 1890s, the issue of excommunication did not yet arise seriously. The treatises became widespread only in Europe, and in Russia handwritten and lithographic copies were passed around. Thus, the Russian reader was not widely familiar with the religious ideas of L.N. Tolstoy. And the Church did not want a loud scandal and did not consider it necessary to attract much attention to his errors. Everyone understood: Tolstoy is such a significant figure that any harsh definition of this kind could cause a public scandal. Which, in fact, happened then.

However, the situation changed radically after Tolstoy published the novel “Resurrection.” It was released both in Russia (with large censorship restrictions, of course) and in Europe, with huge circulations. That is, this time many Russian readers became acquainted with the novel. “Resurrection,” among other things, contained a grotesque, or rather, blasphemous, depiction of the Eucharist. In fact, Tolstoy began to directly mock the most sacred thing, the Church Sacraments. After this, the Church found itself in a very difficult situation. It was no longer possible to remain silent. An ambiguous situation has arisen - Tolstoy calls himself a Christian, but at the same time treats the Church, its Sacraments and church teaching with contemptuous ridicule. What to do? And so, when in 1900 the relatively young bishop, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), became the leading member of the Synod, the decision matured to give a definition about Tolstoy. But it was clear that it could not be put into a very rigid, categorical form. Notice that the words “anathema” and “excommunication” are missing from this definition. However, it unequivocally states that Tolstoy has alienated himself from church communion, and therefore can no longer be considered a member of the Church, that is, he cannot participate in church sacraments, in case of death he cannot be buried according to the Orthodox rite, and so on.

- But still, from a canonical point of view, what was it: excommunication, anathema, something third?

— In form, this is a rather mild statement of the fact that Tolstoy cut himself off from church communion, “an external semblance of excommunication,” as Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky) later explained, but in terms of the canonical consequences for him, this is, of course, excommunication.

— Are excommunication and anathema generally the same thing or not?

— There are different types of church excommunication. Anathema is its most severe form. In the church tradition, excommunication, or anathema, historically meant the most severe of church punishments, indicating the separation of the guilty person from the Body of Christ and his condemnation to eternal destruction. Of course, anathema also implies complete exclusion from participation in church Sacraments, first of all, from participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. One should distinguish from anathema the temporary excommunication of a Church member from church communion, which serves as punishment for less serious sins. Few people probably know that the writer Gorky was excommunicated for 7 years for attempting suicide. For Gorky himself, however, this did not matter at all, because he, although formally a baptized Orthodox man, was in fact very far from the Church.

Thus, anathema is in some sense a global excommunication, which is proclaimed not just for some specific sin committed, but for active, conscious opposition to the Church and its teachings. Temporary excommunication is a prohibition to participate in the Sacraments for a period of time, which can be quite long. For example, in the ancient Church, for special sins, for example, murder or fornication, people were excommunicated from church communion for very long periods. But this is not anathema yet. Anathema is excommunication for conscious and bitter struggle with the Church and church teaching. As a rule, in ancient times anathema was imposed on heretics, on those who actively fought against the Church. This was done after exhortations and denunciations from the Church had taken place, when the person continued to persist and say things that were absolutely incompatible with Church teaching. This was exactly the situation with Tolstoy.

—Who else in Russian history was anathema proclaimed?

— It should be emphasized that in Russian history anathema was always proclaimed very restrainedly and cautiously and only in relation to irreconcilable instigators of schisms or heretics. These are the cases: Strigolniki, Novgorod heretics of the 14th century, Dmitry Tveritinov and his supporters, iconoclast heretics of the early 18th century. In addition, church anathema was proclaimed for serious crimes against the state, which were almost always accompanied by an attack against the Church - here we can recall Grigory Otrepyev, Ivan Mazepa, Stepan Razin. By the way, on the Week of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, anathematisms against certain groups of heretics imposed by the ancient Church are listed. In the middle of the 19th century, in 1869, specific names were finally removed from this rank, but these heresies themselves are named.

— Why was only Tolstoy awarded such an “honor” at that time? After all, many baptized Russian people then held similar views.

“A person can think and even say whatever he wants, and he cannot be excommunicated from the Church for this.” But Tolstoy didn’t just think and didn’t just talk, he disseminated his views in huge numbers. Moreover, he did this after it was pointed out to him that his views categorically did not correspond to church teaching. But I think that even this might not have led to Tolstoy’s excommunication if he had not begun to laugh at what is most dear to a believer, the Liturgy. Here, of course, the Church could no longer remain silent.

Didn't step over

— What was the general history of Tolstoy’s relationship with the Church? Did he immediately become her enemy?

- No, of course, not right away. For Tolstoy, everything went in waves; he experienced several spiritual crises during his life. The most severe crisis occurred in the late 1870s and early 1880s, when Tolstoy was trying to become, to put it simply, an Orthodox person. He goes to services, prays, and participates in the Sacraments. The last time in his life Tolstoy took communion was in April 1878. And after this, he suddenly realizes that Orthodox doctrine and Orthodox life, including liturgical life, are alien to him. In “Confession,” he sets out in detail the history and reasons for his divergence from the Orthodox Church.

The writer made such attempts to become a member of the Church several times. Tolstoy came to Optina Pustyn at least six times during his life, met with Elder Ambrose and other elders, and talked with them. But after a spiritual revolution, which Tolstoy himself dates to 1881, he decided for himself that his whole life was divided into two parts - what happened before 1881 and after 1881. After this, he firmly and consistently distances himself from the Orthodox Church.

— Before his death, did he also visit Optina Pustyn?

“Unfortunately for all of us, he did not find the strength to cross the threshold of the Optina monastery, where he could have met two wonderful elders who were there at that moment - Elder Joseph (Litovkin) and Elder Barsanuphius (Plikhankov). There is a very interesting description of witnesses, two Optina novices who saw with their own eyes how Tolstoy approached the Optina Hermitage monastery several times, but something prevented him from being the first to enter the monastery and ask for a conversation. Then he told his sister that if they called him, he would go. This was approximately 10 days before his death, at the end of October 1910. He left Yasnaya Polyana on October 28 and arrived in Optina Pustyn. Later he went to Shamordino to visit his sister, nun Maria, after which he went by rail, and it seems that he himself did not really understand where, and was forced to get off at the Astapovo station due to illness.

-Where did he go?

“But where he went is still a big question for researchers.” Either he wanted to go to his followers somewhere in the south, or somewhere else.

— Why didn’t the monks themselves invite Tolstoy to cross the threshold of the Optina monastery? Or did they just not know he was coming?

- It’s also not entirely clear. The fact is that Elder Joseph, with whom Tolstoy was personally acquainted and with whom he apparently had a warm relationship, was very ill at that moment. Either he simply couldn’t go to see him due to his physical condition, or they didn’t tell him that Tolstoy had arrived. This meeting, unfortunately, did not take place. But when Tolstoy himself was already lying sick at the Astapovo station, Elder Joseph sent a telegram from Optina Pustyn that he was ready to go to him for a conversation. And the very big trouble is that the people surrounding the sick Tolstoy at that moment did not show him this telegram.

- Who is this?

— This is, first of all, Vladimir Grigorievich Chertkov and the youngest daughter of the writer Alexandra Lvovna. It must be said that Alexandra Lvovna later repented all her life that Tolstoy was not told that Elder Barsanuphius had come to him with the Holy Gifts. He was also not shown not only Elder Joseph’s telegram, but also several other telegrams from the bishops. For example, in a telegram from the leading member of the Holy Synod, Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky), it was said: “From the very first moment of your break with the Church, I incessantly prayed and pray that the Lord would return you to the Church. Perhaps He will soon call you to His judgment, and I now beg you, sick, to be reconciled with the Church and the Orthodox Russian people. God bless and keep you." Tambov Bishop Kirill (Smirnov), former vicar of Bishop Anthony, also sent his telegram, in which he spoke of his readiness to arrive at the Astapovo station.

- Why weren’t Tolstoy told about all this?

— The official version of the people surrounding the writer was that the sick writer, who had double pneumonia and high fever, could not be bothered. They said that if Tolstoy found out that Elder Barsanuphius had arrived, and if they met, it could agitate him so much that his situation would worsen. But I really doubt it. In my book “The Russian Orthodox Church and Leo Tolstoy” I provide testimony from doctors who wrote about how Tolstoy’s illness progressed. And just on the day when the elder arrived, Tolstoy’s fever subsided and his situation improved. In general, it is difficult to imagine how the meeting for which he himself sought could worsen his physical condition.

— The writer’s youngest daughter, Alexandra Lvovna, also did not sympathize with the Russian Church?

— At that moment, yes, because she was under the great influence of Chertkov, who was always very far from the Russian Church. But Alexandra Lvovna’s position subsequently changed seriously. This is also evidenced by the fact that she quarreled with Chertkov. In addition, after the revolution she was imprisoned more than once, and was even in one of the first camps, which was located on the territory of the Novospassky Monastery. And there is information that in the early 1920s she began to change her attitude towards the Church. In exile, Alexandra Lvovna becomes an Orthodox person. Her confessor was the future Bishop Vasily (Rodzianko), who left interesting memories about her, published in the magazine “New World”. When she died in 1979, her funeral service was performed by the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky), who said at the funeral a wonderful word that the Church mourns together with Alexandra Lvovna and members of Tolstoy’s family about what happened to the great writer.

The Eucharist as personal torment

— If we return to the definition of the Synod, how was it received by society? Were there people who took the side of the Church?

— There were a lot of those who condemned the decision of the Synod and organized public demonstrations. One of them was a famous demonstration at an art exhibition in front of a portrait of Tolstoy. They gave an ovation there and began to bring bouquets to the portrait. Also, for example, Chekhov, having learned about the excommunication, said that Russia greeted this act of the Synod with laughter. Blok also reacted in his diary in such a way that there was nothing wrong with the fact that the Synod prohibited rejoicing with Tolstoy. We, said Blok, have long ago learned to both rejoice and be sad without the Synod. Moreover, a negative attitude towards the act of the Synod was not only among representatives of the intelligentsia, but also, for example, among part of the official bureaucracy.

— What do you think was the reason, or perhaps a whole set of reasons, for Tolstoy’s falling away from the Church?

— There are reasons, both objective and subjective. The objective reasons are that Tolstoy was stuck in the Enlightenment in its French version. It is no coincidence that he loved Rousseau so much. And Rousseau’s main idea is that there is no depravity in man, that he is good in his naturalness, and this naturalness is opposed by culture and civilization. The purpose of human life, therefore, is to revive this naturalness in oneself. This idea turned out to be very close to Tolstoy. That is why he opposed almost all state and cultural institutions. Actually, Tolstoy is the loudest voice against his contemporary civilization and culture. The church point of view is completely different. The original idea that underlies Christian dogma is the idea of ​​the global depravity of human nature as a result of the Fall. Therefore, it needs renewal and transformation, and all this transformation is accomplished only with God’s help. But this is precisely what Tolstoy categorically denies.

— Was this always unacceptable to him?

“This idea is constantly present in his diaries, which he kept for more than sixty years of his life. The idea that a person is not spoiled, that he can achieve everything on his own. Therefore, the Savior - in the church’s understanding - is not needed by man. The second point is Tolstoy’s rejection of the Church Sacraments, which, by the way, is quite logical. After all, if human nature is not damaged, then it is not clear why grace is needed. Tolstoy always denied the existence of grace and the need for salvation. It is no coincidence that he did not accept the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For him it was simply personal torment.

But we can also assume a subjective aspect here, but these are just our hypotheses. Perhaps something happened at the level of personal meetings that greatly offended him. There is an element of strong personal resentment, dissatisfaction and irritation in what Tolstoy writes about the Church. Many of Tolstoy's contemporaries took similar positions, but none of them wrote as harshly about the Church as he did. The question arises: if a person preaches what we now call tolerance and toleration of other people’s views, why does he himself write such things about the Church? Perhaps because the person is very offended by something personally. But we will never know what it could be. Maybe it was some kind of meeting. He also met with many outstanding church contemporaries, with Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), traveled specially to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and met with many theologians. Perhaps someone said something to him that could have offended him and really displeased him.

Tolstoyanism is being revived again

— Is Tolstoyism sectarianism, heresy? What is this anyway?

- On the one hand, Tolstoyism is those people who tried to fulfill Tolstoy’s behests in the field of practical life and organized agricultural communes. As a rule, this ended in failure. It turned out that Russian intellectuals were bad at plowing the land, harvesting crops, and so on.

On the other hand, Tolstoyism is the type of “Christianity” that Tolstoy preached. This Tolstoyanism is unusually alive today. In my opinion, it is even being revived again. This happens when we read the speeches of politicians or actors, generally representatives of the intelligentsia, who say that what is important in Christianity is not the mystical-dogmatic side, but the moral side - not to do evil to others, to fulfill the commandments, and so on. When they say this, they, perhaps without realizing it, are preaching views quite close to Tolstoy. These are Tolstoyans in a new, modern wrapper. This Tolstoyanism is present throughout the history of the twentieth century. Both here in Russia and in Europe.

- This is very close to Kant too...

- Yes, sure. In fact, this is one of the products of the Reformation, and a very late one, which Luther himself would have renounced and recognized as heresy. But Luther's ideas changed greatly over time. You are right that Tolstoy preached a view of Christianity that was very popular in Germany and in Europe in general. This is “Christianity” in quotation marks, in which only moral content remains. It renounces the Divinity of Christ and the mystical-dogmatic side. For example, Tolstoy categorically denied the resurrection of Christ. As is known, his presentation of the Gospel ends with the episode of Christ's death on the cross. But, as the Apostle Paul said, If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain (1 Cor. 15:14).

— Is it true that Tolstoy himself did not really like his own followers, the Tolstoyans?

— Yes its true. For example, when in 1909 one rural teacher asked Lev Nikolayevich where Tolstoy’s agricultural colonies could be found, he sharply answered him (which was generally not typical for the writer) that he did not know this and generally considered the structure of colonies or communities with special statutes “useless and rather harmful for moral improvement.”

- What was this connected with?

- I can make such a hypothesis. Tolstoy, on the one hand, raised quite burning, serious questions of Russian life. After all, the Russian peasantry then made up 80–86% of the Russian population. And Tolstoy wrote a lot about his troubles and problems. On the other hand, with all his aspiration for the people, he remained a sophisticated Russian nobleman until the end of his life. And when unwashed people in bast shoes came to him, who, being intellectuals by origin, dressed up in these folk clothes, all this could hardly have been attractive to him. Therefore, he often felt antipathy towards such people.

By the way, Tolstoyism, not as a system of ideas, but as a movement associated with specific activities, existed for quite a long time. For example, the files of the Tolstoyans in the FSB archive indicate that the last Tolstoyans lived in Siberia after the Great Patriotic War. True, these groups were already quite insignificant.

Tolstoy and revolution

— How did Tolstoy and Tolstoyism influence the development of revolutionary processes, and why did Lenin call Tolstoy “the mirror of the Russian revolution”? In general, did Tolstoy contribute to the decomposition of the Russian state?

— I personally believe that I contributed, although here, of course, you need to be very careful. It is necessary to more accurately study the circulation of Tolstoy’s books in Russia, who read them, and what conclusions were drawn from what they read. However, there are real documents that show that certain journalistic articles of Tolstoy, for example, the famous “Soldier's Memo,” contributed to the disintegration of the army. The members of the Social Democratic Party themselves pointed this out, although Tolstoy and his ideas were very far from the ideas of the Social Democrats. As you know, he preached non-resistance to evil through violence, that is, he was categorically against any violent coups. But his journalism turned out to be very useful from the point of view of the concrete implementation of social democratic tasks - the disintegration of the army, criticism of the state, and so on. All this played into the hands of the Social Democrats, and then the Bolsheviks.

The influence of Tolstoy’s ideas in all their duality - that is, non-resistance to evil through violence, and criticism of the state and the Church - was experienced by almost all Russian intellectuals of the early twentieth century. This can be seen in their letters, in their diaries, in their memoirs.

— Such an anti-scientific question: if Tolstoy had lived to see 1917, how would he have reacted to the revolution?

- Of course, negatively. He, of course, understood that trying to achieve positive goals through violent, bloody means was futile. Of course, he would not have accepted the revolution, but the more interesting question is whether Tolstoy would have realized that he, too, was to some extent responsible for what happened in 1917? Here, of course, the question remains open. True, on the other hand, there were a lot of reasons for the revolution of 1917, and of course, it would be completely wrong to place all the blame for the revolutionary catastrophe on Tolstoy.

Why read Tolstoy?

— What general lessons can we learn today from Tolstoy’s spiritual quest? Let's say, do we have the right, since he was excommunicated from the Church, to simply sweep aside his religious and philosophical works and not even pick them up? In a word, in your opinion, what is the instructiveness of Tolstoy’s spiritual drama?

- I think that, of course, there are such lessons. I have already said that Tolstoy’s “Christianity” is now in fashion, although few people read the writer seriously, because in order, for example, to understand his diary, you need to make quite a serious effort. However, priests often have to encounter similar views from representatives of the intelligentsia, who ask questions about the fate of Tolstoy and the actions of the Church. And they have to figure out what the essence of this “Christianity” is, why it so emphasizes the moral basis in human experience. Therefore, we cannot do without Tolstoy’s treatises here. But at the same time, we must understand that they carry a very strong anti-church charge (due, among other things, to the peculiarities of the then church-state realities). This must be kept in mind when the priest recommends reading them to someone.

“Then why should an Orthodox believer read them at all?”

— I believe that they can be of great interest primarily for those who study the religious history of Russia and Europe of the 19th century. Tolstoy's philosophical treatises are an important, although, of course, far from the only source of this kind - in this series one can name the works of Feuerbach, N. Fedorov, Stirner or Nietzsche.

It must also be said that in these works Tolstoy raises the most important, burning social questions of that time, cardinal questions of Russian life, and therefore they may also be of interest to those who are interested in the social and cultural history of Russia in the 19th century.

Finally, some of the writer’s works, primarily the well-known “Confession” and the diary little known except to specialists, clearly demonstrate the features of the religious biography of a Russian educated man of this time. From this point of view, L. N. Tolstoy’s diary is a most interesting source on the history of Russian spiritual culture.

But, I repeat, reading these works should be approached with caution, guided by the principle of “do no harm” and taking into account the spiritual component of the issue.

[1] Priest Georgy Orekhanov is the author of the book “The Russian Orthodox Church and Leo Tolstoy: the perception of the conflict by contemporaries”

foma.ru

The Eucharist as personal torment

— If we return to the definition of the Synod, how was it received by society? Were there people who took the side of the Church?

— There were a lot of those who condemned the decision of the Synod and organized public demonstrations. One of them was a famous demonstration at an art exhibition in front of a portrait of Tolstoy. They gave an ovation there and began to bring bouquets to the portrait. Also, for example, Chekhov, having learned about the excommunication, said that Russia greeted this act of the Synod with laughter. Blok also reacted in his diary in such a way that there was nothing wrong with the fact that the Synod prohibited rejoicing with Tolstoy. We, said Blok, have long ago learned to both rejoice and be sad without the Synod. Moreover, a negative attitude towards the act of the Synod was not only among representatives of the intelligentsia, but also, for example, among part of the official bureaucracy.

— What do you think was the reason, or perhaps a whole set of reasons, for Tolstoy’s falling away from the Church?

— There are reasons, both objective and subjective. The objective reasons are that Tolstoy was stuck in the Enlightenment in its French version. It is no coincidence that he loved Rousseau so much. And Rousseau’s main idea is that there is no depravity in man, that he is good in his naturalness, and this naturalness is opposed by culture and civilization. The purpose of human life, therefore, is to revive this naturalness in oneself. This idea turned out to be very close to Tolstoy. That is why he opposed almost all state and cultural institutions. Actually, Tolstoy is the loudest voice against his contemporary civilization and culture. The church point of view is completely different. The original idea that underlies Christian dogma is the idea of ​​the global depravity of human nature as a result of the Fall. Therefore, it needs renewal and transformation, and all this transformation is accomplished only with God’s help. But this is precisely what Tolstoy categorically denies.

— Was this always unacceptable to him?

“This idea is constantly present in his diaries, which he kept for more than sixty years of his life. The idea that a person is not spoiled, that he can achieve everything on his own. Therefore, the Savior - in the church’s understanding - is not needed by man. The second point is Tolstoy’s rejection of the Church Sacraments, which, by the way, is quite logical. After all, if human nature is not damaged, then it is not clear why grace is needed. Tolstoy always denied the existence of grace and the need for salvation. It is no coincidence that he did not accept the Sacrament of the Eucharist. For him it was simply personal torment.

But we can also assume a subjective aspect here, but these are just our hypotheses. Perhaps something happened at the level of personal meetings that greatly offended him. There is an element of strong personal resentment, dissatisfaction and irritation in what Tolstoy writes about the Church. Many of Tolstoy's contemporaries took similar positions, but none of them wrote as harshly about the Church as he did. The question arises: if a person preaches what we now call tolerance and toleration of other people’s views, why does he himself write such things about the Church? Perhaps because the person is very offended by something personally. But we will never know what it could be. Maybe it was some kind of meeting. He also met with many outstanding church contemporaries, with Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), traveled specially to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, and met with many theologians. Perhaps someone said something to him that could have offended him and really displeased him.

Leo Tolstoy's response to the Holy Synod

Tolstoy’s response to the Holy Synod soon followed:

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

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

...I really renounced the Church, stopped performing its rituals and wrote in my will to my loved ones,

so that when I die, they will not allow church ministers to see me and my dead body will be removed as quickly as possible,

without any spells or prayers over it, just as they remove every nasty and unnecessary thing so that it does not interfere with the living.

...That I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable of the fall of the first man, the story of God,

born of a Virgin, redeeming the human race, then this is absolutely fair

...It is also said: “Does not recognize the afterlife and retribution.” If they understand the afterlife in the sense of the second coming,

hell with eternal torment/devils and heaven - constant bliss - it is quite fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife...

...It is also said that I reject all sacraments... This is completely fair, since I consider all sacraments base,

rude witchcraft, inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel..."

Lev Tolstoy

writer

Tolstoy’s letter to the Synod made a great impression on the writer’s entourage; Tolstoy’s wife will subsequently ask to lift the anathema, but the definition of the Synod will remain unchanged.

Tolstoyanism is being revived again

— Is Tolstoyism sectarianism, heresy? What is this anyway?

- On the one hand, Tolstoyism is those people who tried to fulfill Tolstoy’s behests in the field of practical life and organized agricultural communes. As a rule, this ended in failure. It turned out that Russian intellectuals were bad at plowing the land, harvesting crops, and so on.

On the other hand, Tolstoyism is the type of “Christianity” that Tolstoy preached. This Tolstoyanism is unusually alive today. In my opinion, it is even being revived again. This happens when we read the speeches of politicians or actors, generally representatives of the intelligentsia, who say that what is important in Christianity is not the mystical-dogmatic side, but the moral side - not to do evil to others, to fulfill the commandments, and so on. When they say this, they, perhaps without realizing it, are preaching views quite close to Tolstoy. These are Tolstoyans in a new, modern wrapper. This Tolstoyanism is present throughout the history of the twentieth century. Both here in Russia and in Europe.

Monument in the writer's museum-estate in Moscow. Photo from the RIA-Novosti archive.

- This is very close to Kant too...

- Yes, sure. In fact, this is one of the products of the Reformation, and a very late one, which Luther himself would have renounced and recognized as heresy. But Luther's ideas changed greatly over time. You are right that Tolstoy preached a view of Christianity that was very popular in Germany and in Europe in general. This is “Christianity” in quotation marks, in which only moral content remains. It renounces the Divinity of Christ and the mystical-dogmatic side. For example, Tolstoy categorically denied the resurrection of Christ. As is known, his presentation of the Gospel ends with the episode of Christ’s death on the cross. But, as the Apostle Paul said, If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is also in vain (1 Cor. 15:14).

— Is it true that Tolstoy himself did not really like his own followers, the Tolstoyans?

-Yes its true. For example, when in 1909 one rural teacher asked Lev Nikolayevich where Tolstoy’s agricultural colonies could be found, he sharply answered him (which was generally not typical for the writer) that he did not know this and generally considered the structure of colonies or communities with special statutes “useless and rather harmful for moral improvement”*.

- What was this connected with?

- I can make such a hypothesis. Tolstoy, on the one hand, raised quite burning, serious questions of Russian life. After all, the Russian peasantry then made up 80-86% of the Russian population. And Tolstoy wrote a lot about his troubles and problems. On the other hand, with all his aspiration for the people, he remained a sophisticated Russian nobleman until the end of his life. And when unwashed people in bast shoes came to him, who, being intellectuals by origin, dressed up in these folk clothes, all this could hardly have been attractive to him. Therefore, he often felt antipathy towards such people.

By the way, Tolstoyism, not as a system of ideas, but as a movement associated with specific activities, existed for quite a long time. For example, the files of the Tolstoyans in the FSB archive indicate that the last Tolstoyans lived in Siberia after the Great Patriotic War. True, these groups were already quite insignificant.

Tolstoy and revolution

— How did Tolstoy and Tolstoyism influence the development of revolutionary processes, and why did Lenin call Tolstoy “the mirror of the Russian revolution”? In general, did Tolstoy contribute to the decomposition of the Russian state?

— I personally believe that I contributed, although here, of course, you need to be very careful. It is necessary to more accurately study the circulation of Tolstoy’s books in Russia, who read them, and what conclusions were drawn from what they read. However, there are real documents that show that certain journalistic articles of Tolstoy, for example, the famous “Soldier's Memo,” contributed to the disintegration of the army. The members of the Social Democratic Party themselves pointed this out, although Tolstoy and his ideas were very far from the ideas of the Social Democrats. As you know, he preached non-resistance to evil through violence, that is, he was categorically against any violent coups. But his journalism turned out to be very useful from the point of view of the concrete implementation of social democratic tasks - the disintegration of the army, criticism of the state, and so on. All this played into the hands of the Social Democrats, and then the Bolsheviks.

The influence of Tolstoy’s ideas in all their duality - that is, non-resistance to evil through violence, and criticism of the state and the Church - was experienced by almost all Russian intellectuals of the early twentieth century. This can be seen in their letters, in their diaries, in their memoirs.

— Such an anti-scientific question: if Tolstoy had lived to see 1917, how would he have reacted to the revolution?

- Of course, negatively. He, of course, understood that trying to achieve positive goals through violent, bloody means was futile. Of course, he would not have accepted the revolution, but the more interesting question is whether Tolstoy would have realized that he, too, was to some extent responsible for what happened in 1917? Here, of course, the question remains open. True, on the other hand, there were a lot of reasons for the revolution of 1917, and of course, it would be completely wrong to place all the blame for the revolutionary catastrophe on Tolstoy.

Tolstoyism is a religious and ethical movement that was created by L. N. Tolstoy

To replace Orthodoxy, Count Tolstoy created his own religious movement - Tolstoyism, the foundations of which he outlined in the works “Confession”, “What is my faith?”, “On Life”, “Christian Doctrine”.

In short: Tolstoyism is Christian commandments with a complete absence of traditions, rituals and mysticism.

Toast

Christian commandments with a complete absence of traditions, rituals and mysticism

Tolstoy takes as the basis of his movement the words from the Gospel: “Do not resist evil.”

The writer rejects and condemns personal immortality, the authority of the church, state support for the church, and existing forms of coercion.

The opinion that Leo Tolstoy expressed about religion quickly spread among his compatriots, and Tolstoyism gained followers.