Why the fat lion was excommunicated from the church. Why Leo Tolstoy was anathematized

Alexander Tkachenko

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

The story of Tolstoy's excommunication is unique in its own way. None of the Russian writers, comparable to him in terms of artistic talent, was at enmity with Orthodoxy. Neither Pushkin's youthful frondism, nor the gloomy Byronism and Lermontov's absurd death in a duel forced them to stop considering them their children. who, in his spiritual development, went from participating in an underground organization to a prophetic understanding of the future fate of Russia; Gogol, with his "Selected passages from correspondence with friends" and "Explanation of the Divine Liturgy"; Ostrovsky, who is rightfully called the Russian Shakespeare, Alexei Konstantinovich Tolstoy, Aksakov, Leskov, Turgenev, Goncharov… In fact, all Russian classical literature XIX century was created by Orthodox Christians.

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

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

Perhaps, this point of view was most fully expressed by the remarkable writer Alexander Kuprin in his story "Anathema". The plot of the story is simple: the protodeacon of the cathedral, Father Olympius, is forced to proclaim an anathematization of his beloved writer Leo Tolstoy during the divine service. Reading the monstrous curses according to the 17th century breviary, “which only the narrow mind of the monks of the first centuries of Christianity could invent,” the protodeacon recalls Tolstoy’s beautiful lines read the night before, and makes his choice - instead of an “anathema”, he proclaims to Count Tolstoy “many years”.

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

“The archbishop was a great formalist, pedant and capricious. He never allowed a single text to be omitted, either from the canon of the blessed father and pastor, or from the burial rite, or from other services. And Father Olympius, indifferently shaking the cathedral with his lion's roar and making the glass on the chandeliers ring with a thin rattling sound, cursed, anathematized and excommunicated from the church: ... Mohammedans, Bogomils, Judaizers, cursed those who blasphemed the feast of the Annunciation, korchemniks, offending widows and orphans, Russian schismatics, rebels and traitors: Grishka Otrepiev, Timoshka Akundinov, Stenka Razin, Ivashka Mazepa, Emelka Pugachev, as well as all those who accept teachings that are contrary to the Orthodox faith ... "

“... Although tempt the spirit of the Lord according to Simon the sorcerer and according to Ananias and Sapphira, like a dog returning to his vomit, let his days be small and evil, and let his prayer be in sin, and let the devil become in his gums and let him be condemned, in a single generation, may his name perish, and may his memory be destroyed from the earth ... And may the curse come, and the anathema is not just strictly and strictly, but many-sided ... May Cain's shaking, Gehazi's leprosy, Judas' strangulation, Simon's sorcerer's death, Aryan's trembling , Ananias and Sapphiri, a sudden death ... let him be excommunicated and anathematized and not forgiven after death, and let his body not crumble and let the earth not accept him, and let his part be in eternal hell and be tormented day and night.

Such are terrible words to the great writer. But do not rush to be horrified. The fact is that this whole nightmare, attributed by Kuprin to the "narrow mind of the monks of the first centuries of Christianity", is from beginning to end his own fiction. And the point is not even that, well, the name of Emelyan Pugachev, who was born and lived in the eighteenth century, could not appear in the breviary of the seventeenth century. And not in the fact that, starting from 1869, the anathematization of individuals in Russia was completely stopped.

It’s just that none of the numerous printed and handwritten rites of anathematization compiled by the Russian Orthodox Church over several centuries contains anything even remotely similar to the curses that Kuprin spews on Lev Nikolaevich on behalf of the Church. All these terrible spells are nothing more than the fruit of the wild imagination of a dechurched Russian intellectual of the early twentieth century. None of the temples Russian Empire anathema to Tolstoy was not proclaimed. Everything was much less solemn and more prosaic: the newspapers published the Epistle of the Holy Synod. Here is its full text:

by the grace of God

Holy All-Russian Synod to the faithful children of the Orthodox Catholic Greek-Russian Churches rejoice in the Lord.

We pray you, brethren, beware of those who create strife and strife, except for the doctrine, but you will learn it, and deviate from them ().

From the beginning, Christ's Church endured blasphemy and attacks from numerous heretics and false teachers who sought to overthrow it and shake its essential foundations, which were established on faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God. But all the forces of hell, according to the promise of the Lord, could not overcome the Holy Church, which will remain unconquered forever. And in our days, by God's permission, a new false teacher, Count Leo Tolstoy, has appeared. known to the world the writer, Russian by birth, Orthodox by his baptism and upbringing, Count Tolstoy, in the seduction of his proud mind, boldly rebelled against the Lord and His Christ and His holy property, clearly before everyone renounced the mother who nursed and raised him, the Orthodox Church, and devoted his literary activity and the talent given to him by God to the spread among the people of teachings that are contrary to Christ and the Church, and to the extermination in the minds and hearts of people of the paternal faith, the Orthodox faith, which affirmed the universe, by which our ancestors lived and were saved, and which hitherto held and strong was Holy Russia. In his writings and letters, in the many scattered by him and his students all over the world, especially within the borders of our dear Fatherland, he preaches with the zeal of a fanatic the overthrow of all dogmas. Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith; rejects the personal Living God, glorified in the Holy Trinity, creator and providence of the Universe, denies the Lord Jesus Christ, the God-Man, Redeemer and Savior of the world, who suffered for us for the sake of man and for our salvation and rose from the dead, denies the divine conception according to humanity of Christ the Lord and virginity before of the birth and after the birth of the Most Pure Theotokos, Ever-Virgin Mary, does not recognize the afterlife and retribution, rejects all the sacraments of the Church and the grace-filled action of the Holy Spirit in them, and, scolding the most sacred objects of the faith of the Orthodox people, did not shudder to mock the greatest of the sacraments, the holy Eucharist. All this is preached by Count Tolstoy continuously, in word and writing, to the temptation and horror of the entire Orthodox world, and thus openly, but clearly in front of everyone, consciously and deliberately rejected himself from any communion with the Orthodox Church. Former same to his admonition attempts were unsuccessful. Therefore, the Church does not consider him a member and cannot count him until he repents and restores his communion with her. Now we testify to this before the whole Church for the confirmation of those who are right and for the admonition of those who are mistaken, especially for the new admonition of Count Tolstoy himself. Many of his neighbors, who keep the faith, think with sorrow that he, at the end of his days, remains without faith in God and the Lord our Savior, having rejected the blessings and prayers of the Church and from any communion with her.

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

Genuine signed:

Humble ANTONY, Metropolitan of St. Petersburg and Ladoga.

Humble FEOGNOST, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia.

Humble VLADIMIR, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna.

Humble JEROME, Archbishop of Kholm and Warsaw.

Humble JACOB, Bishop of Chisinau and Khotyn.

Humble James, Bishop.

Humble BORIS, Bishop.

Humble MARKEL, Bishop.

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

The Russian Orthodox Church simply stated the fact with bitterness: the great Russian writer, Count Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy ceased to be a member of the Orthodox Church. And by no means by virtue of the definition issued by the Synod. Everything happened much earlier. In response to an indignant letter from the wife of Lev Nikolaevich Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya, written by her regarding the publication of the Synod's decision in the newspapers, Metropolitan Anthony of St. Petersburg wrote:

“Gracious Empress Countess Sofia Andreevna! It’s not cruel what the Synod did when it announced your husband’s falling away from the Church, but what he did to himself when he renounced his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Redeemer and Savior, is cruel. It was on this renunciation that your bitter indignation should have poured out long ago. And not from a scrap, of course, of printed paper, your husband perishes, but from the fact that he turned away from the Source of eternal life.

Compassion for the persecuted and sympathy for the offended are, of course, the noblest impulses of the soul. Lev Nikolaevich, of course, it's a pity. But before sympathizing with Tolstoy, it is necessary to answer one very important question: how much did Tolstoy himself suffer about his excommunication from the Church? After all, only those who suffer can be sympathetic. But did Tolstoy perceive the excommunication as some kind of tangible loss for himself? Here is the time to turn to his famous answer to the definition of the Holy Synod, which was also published in all Russian newspapers. Here are some excerpts from that message:

“... The fact that I renounced the Church that calls itself Orthodox is absolutely 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 sorcery, which completely hides the whole meaning of Christian teaching.

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

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

... It is also said: "Does not recognize the afterlife and bribes." If they understand life after death in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment / devils and paradise - permanent bliss, it is quite right that I do not recognize such an afterlife ...

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

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

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

- And what, they proclaimed an anathema to me?

- It seems not.

– Why not? It was necessary to proclaim ... After all, as if it were necessary?

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

“No,” he replied and laughed.

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

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

The debate about the anathema to Tolstoy does not subside even today, more than a century later. Permanent newspaper "Izvestia" Boris Klin turned to the diaries and notes of Tolstoy. to understand whether the writer himself experienced excommunication, whether he recognized himself as Orthodox, whether he shared the teachings of the Church.

In 1901, the Holy Synod adopted the Definition, which recorded the fact of “falling away” from the Church of Leo Tolstoy. The temples did not proclaim to him - just the document was published in the newspapers. Then came Tolstoy's reply, in which he openly admitted that he had renounced the Church, and called its teaching false. Despite this, for more than 100 years there have been people in Russia demanding the “rehabilitation” of Tolstoy and wondering why there is no cross on the writer’s grave.

As a matter of fact, the writer formulated in his answer to the Synod in much more detail and clearer than the Chief Procurator Pobedonostsev in the Definition itself. In his letter, Tolstoy emphasizes more than once: “The fact that I renounced the church that calls itself Orthodox is absolutely fair.” In fact, this confession alone is enough to understand that he did not consider himself a member of the Church. He was not taken away. He “fell away”, as stated in the definition of the Synod. But Tolstoy did not stop there.

In response to the decision of the Synod, he explicitly stated that he rejected the “incomprehensible Trinity”, “the meaningless fable about the fall of the first man” and “the blasphemous story of God, born of a virgin, redeeming the human race.” He calls the teachings of the Church "an insidious and harmful lie, a collection of the grossest superstitions and witchcraft that hide the meaning of Christian teaching." Tolstoy considered prayers and Church Sacraments to be witchcraft: “in order for a child, if he dies, to go to heaven, you need to have time to anoint him with oil and redeem him with the pronunciation of famous words, so that there is success in business or a quiet life in a new house, in order for bread to be born well , the drought has stopped, in order for the journey to be safe, in order to be cured of an illness, in order to ease the situation of the deceased in the next world, for all this and a thousand other circumstances there are well-known spells that in a certain place and for certain offerings the priest says.

In the novel "Resurrection" Tolstoy venomously described the Sacrament of the Eucharist. According to some historians, this was the last straw that broke the Synod's patience. But the writer does not express the slightest regret about this: “It is blasphemy not to call a partition a partition, and not an iconostasis, and a cup a cup, and not a chalice, etc., but the most terrible, unceasing, outrageous blasphemy - in the fact that people, using all possible means of deception and hypnotism, assure children and simple-minded people that if you cut pieces of bread in a certain way and while pronouncing certain words and put them in wine, then God enters into these pieces; and that the one in whose name a living piece is taken out will be healthy; in the name of whom such a piece is taken out of the deceased, then it will be better for him in the next world; and that whoever eats this piece, God himself will enter into him.

And finally, to those who are indignant at the absence of a cross on Tolstoy’s grave, the writer himself gave the answer: “I really renounced the church, stopped performing its rites and wrote in my will to my relatives that when I die, they would not allow church ministers to see me. and my dead body would be removed as soon as possible, without any spells and prayers over it, as they remove any nasty and unnecessary thing so that it does not interfere with the living.

All this, however, did not prevent the descendants and admirers of Tolstoy in 2001 and in 2006, on the occasion of the 100th and 105th anniversary of the excommunication, from appealing to the Church to “reconsider their attitude.” The Russian Orthodox Church gave a clear and unequivocal answer: a person can renounce his delusions and return to the bosom of the Church through repentance, but neither relatives nor sympathizers can do this for him. Deacon Andrey Kuraev believes that our country is used to posthumous rehabilitation, but in this case the decision of the Synod can be reviewed only when evidence is presented that Tolstoy renounced his views and reconciled with the Church: “Even if he did this in the last minutes of life. As for Tolstoy's literary talents, even a hundred years ago the Synod recognized that Tolstoy was "a world-famous writer," but devoted "the talent given to him by God to spread among the people teachings that are contrary to Christ and the Church."

"God-seeking" and the theomachism of L.N. Tolstoy

— — — — — — — — — — — — —

I. E. Repin. Leo Tolstoy in 1901

In 1901, the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Orthodox Church. In the history of Russian literature, perhaps, there is no topic more difficult and sad than the excommunication of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy from the Church. The story of Tolstoy's excommunication is unique in its own way. None of the Russian writers, comparable to him in terms of artistic talent, was at enmity with Orthodoxy. How can it be, the greatest of Russian writers, an unsurpassed master of words, who possessed amazing artistic intuition, an author who became a classic during his lifetime ... And at the same time - the only one of our writers who was excommunicated from the Church.

Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828 - 1910) - a great writer who received from God a huge talent for artistic creativity, which allowed him to achieve world fame, unprecedented in the history of literature. Author of the great historical epic "War and Peace" and psychological epic "Anna Karenina" . God gave him an extraordinary mind, and the ability to see the world around him through the eyes of an attentive artist.

Although Leo Tolstoy himself was skeptical about his novels, including War and Peace. In 1871, he sent a letter to Fet: “How happy I am ... that I will never write verbose rubbish like “War” again.” An entry in his diary in 1908 reads: "People love me for those trifles -" War and Peace ", etc., which seem to them very important." In the summer of 1909, one of the visitors to Yasnaya Polyana expressed his delight and gratitude for the creation of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Tolstoy replied: “It’s like someone came to Edison and said:“ I really respect you for the fact that you are good at dancing the mazurka. I attribute meaning to my completely different books (religious ones!).”

Loss of faith in God

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy was born on August 28 (September 9, NS), 1828, in the family estate of Yasnaya Polyana, located in the Tula region. In infancy, he was baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church and until the age of 15 he observed all the canons of the Church - he went to Sunday services, observed the prayer rule, fasted and took communion.

However, already by the 16th year of his life, Tolstoy, according to him, forever lost his faith in God. From the age of 15, he began to read the philosophical writings of the French "enlighteners". From the age of 16, he stopped praying, going to church and fasting. Having lost faith in a personal God, Tolstoy, as always happens in such cases, began to look for idols for himself. Such an idol, whom he idolized, was the famous French philosopher-“enlightener”, one of the creators of the Great French Revolution, an enemy of the Christian faith and the Church, - Jean Jacques Rousseau . The influence of Rousseau's personality and ideas was undoubtedly enormous and decisive in Tolstoy's life (from the age of 15, Tolstoy wore a medallion with his portrait around his neck instead of a pectoral cross).

For the next 25 years, Tolstoy lived as a nihilist, in the sense of the absence of any faith.

"Arzamas Horror"

By the age of 40, Tolstoy was already a famous writer, a happy father of a family and a zealous landowner. It seemed that he had nothing more to wish for, not without reason in one of his letters he wrote: "I am immensely happy." Just at this moment, he completed work on the novel "War and Peace", which made Tolstoy the greatest Russian and world writer (the novel was soon translated into European languages). According to Turgenev, "nothing better has ever been written by anyone."

And in 1869, the "happy" Tolstoy went to see the estate in the Penza province, which he hoped to buy at a profit. On the way, he spent the night in an Arzamas hotel.

He fell asleep, but suddenly woke up in horror: it seemed to him that he was about to die. He later described this experience in "Notes of a Madman" : “All night I suffered unbearably ... I live, I lived, I must live, and suddenly death, the destruction of everything. Why life? Die? Kill yourself now? Afraid. Live, then? For what? To die. I did not leave this circle, I remained alone, with myself.

After this night, which the writer himself called the "Arzamas horror", Tolstoy's life split in half. All of a sudden, everything lost its meaning and meaning. Accustomed to work, he hated her, his wife became a stranger to him, the children are indifferent. In the face of the great mystery of death, the former Tolstoy died. In the 40th year of his active life, he for the first time felt the vast emptiness of Nothing as a universal destiny.

The Spiritual Crisis of Leo Tolstoy

After 40 years, Tolstoy begins to experience a painful spiritual crisis.

The fear of death, the feeling of emptiness and the meaninglessness of life haunted Tolstoy for several years. He tried to seek consolation in philosophy, in the Orthodox faith and in other religions. In science, he was already disillusioned, the pessimistic philosophy that he adhered to before did not give an answer and led to a dead end, it was even less possible to count on social ideals, because if you do not know why all this is, the ideals themselves fly into smoke; then he suddenly realized that "reasonable knowledge" was powerless to solve his question. And Tolstoy was forced to admit that it is faith that fills life with meaning.

Throughout the year, Tolstoy tries to lead a church life: he attends church, performs all the rites, reads the lives of saints and theological literature, travels to the Optina Hermitage, and talks with famous elders. The last time in his life Tolstoy took communion in April 1878. And after that, he suddenly realizes that the Orthodox dogma and Orthodox life, including liturgical life, are alien to him.

Very soon, philosophy and existing religions appeared empty and unnecessary to Tolstoy. He began to have thoughts of suicide.

The story of the moral and spiritual torment that nearly drove him to suicide as he vainly sought to find the meaning of life is told in "Confessions"(1879-1882). In this religious and philosophical treatise, he describes his history of spiritual quest: from youthful nihilism and disbelief to the crisis of adulthood, when the writer, who possessed all sorts of life benefits: health, recognition, wealth, "a kind, loving and beloved wife," was seized by the horror of " dragon" - an all-devouring death that makes any human aspirations futile. He shares his attempt to comprehend his own life path, the path to what he considered the Truth. And the Truth for him was that life is Nonsense.

Gospel of Tolstoy

Finding no consolation in existing religions and Orthodoxy, Tolstoy turns to the Bible, to its analysis, especially to the New Testament, and here it seems to him that he has found the answer to his questions. He was struck by the idea of ​​writing his own Gospel, combining the "sense" of all 4 Gospels into one text and throwing out of it "unnecessary", as it seemed to him, fragments. Rejecting those interpretations of the Gospel given by the Church, he sits down to translate the Gospels from ancient Greek on his own. Tolstoy approached the reading of the Gospels with two pencils: blue to emphasize the necessary, red to cross out the unnecessary. In his translation of the Gospel, he openly violates the text, throwing out everything that does not coincide with his own ideas, directly distorting the meaning of what was written. After all, the Gospels were written by ignorant people, not free from superstition and naive dreams; they wrote a lot of "unnecessary", fanning Jesus Christ with various myths, and then the Church, having completely distorted the true teaching of Christ, clothed him in mysticism. Hence the task arose to choose from the gospel texts what Christ himself said and what was attributed to him. That's how it came into being "The Four Gospels: The Connection and Translation of the Four Gospels" (1880-1881).

First of all, Tolstoy completely abandoned the connection of Christianity with the Old Testament, which leads to a contradiction between belief in an “external, carnal creator” and the expectation of the Messiah, and simple and clear Christian truth without mysticism. Tolstoy crossed out all the stanzas about the miracles of the Savior, whom he considered an ordinary person. Tolstoy's gospel "according to the meaning" ends with the death of Jesus on the cross, when He, "having bowed his head, betrayed the spirit." Further gospel stanzas about burial, resurrection, appearance to the apostles and ascension were crossed out by Tolstoy as "unnecessary", contrary to reasonable understanding.

Tolstoy singled out the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel as the essence of the law of Christ and contrasted it with the Nicene Creed as the essence of Orthodoxy. Tolstoy summarizes Christ's instructions in the Sermon on the Mount to the following points:

• Don't resist evil
• don't get angry
• don't get divorced
• don't swear
• don't judge
• don't fight.

In them, according to Tolstoy, all Christian morality is contained, and on this basis one can create happy life on earth, or, in his terminology, "the kingdom of God among men." The essence of the teachings of Christ, set forth in the most concise form, Tolstoy considered his own translation of the prayer "Our Father".

Following a consistent exposition of all the Gospels, Tolstoy gives his understanding of the meaning of the gospel teaching: he writes in 4 volumes "Critique of dogmatic theology" (1879-1884). At the same time he develops his religious philosophy "What is my faith" (1882-1884). All his writings end with criticism of the teachings of the Church. The Church is perceived by him as a social, economic, political concept, but not a spiritual one.

Tolstoyanism

Even in his youth, being a 27-year-old officer, Lev Nikolaevich made the following entry in his diary: “The conversation about deity and faith led me to a great, enormous idea, the implementation of which I feel capable of devoting my life to. This thought is the foundation of a new religion, corresponding to the development of mankind, the religion of Christ, but purified from faith and mystery, a practical religion that does not promise future bliss, but gives bliss on earth. Tolstoy devoted the entire second half of his life (from the end of the 70s to his death in 1910) to this proud idea.

So, Tolstoy's plans included the creation of a universal religion.

Tolstoy developed a special religious ideology of non-violent anarchism (anarcho-pacifism and Christian anarchism), which was based on a rational understanding of Christianity. Considering coercion as evil, he concluded that it was necessary to abolish the state, but not through a revolution based on violence, but through the voluntary refusal of each member of society to perform any public duties, be it military service, paying taxes, etc.

Tolstoy outlined the foundations of his religious and philosophical teachings in artistic form in the works "Confession", "What is my faith?", "Kreutzer Sonata" and others. He also distributed pamphlets describing his own understanding of Christianity, which is far from Orthodox.

The "religious reasoning" of the great writer, largely due to the gift of his speech, the power of his journalistic influence, found thousands of followers who decided to "live according to Tolstoy."

Over the years, "Tolstoyism" in his real form increasingly closer to sectarianism. Tolstoy found followers in Western Europe, Japan, and India. A supporter of Tolstoyanism was, in particular, Mahatma Gandhi . In the 1880s-1900s, Tolstoy colonies were created in England and South Africa. In 1897, Tolstoyism was declared a harmful sect in Russia. (among the famous Tolstoyans were the artist Nikolai Nikolaevich Ge (1831-1894) and a radical priest who went into the revolution, Georgy Apollonovich Gapon (1870-1906) ).

Tolstoy's creed

The most important basis of Tolstoy's teachings were the words of the Gospel "Love your enemies" and the Sermon on the Mount. The fundamental thesis of his teaching was "non-resistance to evil by violence" . This position of non-resistance is fixed, according to Tolstoy, in numerous places in the Gospel and is the core of the teachings of Christ, as, indeed, of Buddhism.

In his religious views, Tolstoy was close to the theosophical and occult teachings that developed worldview principles common to Buddhism, Judaism and Islam. Later, Tolstoy did not hide his proximity to Eastern cults . Few people know that Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy was well acquainted with Buddhism, moreover, his ideas of non-violence were largely a consequence of the spiritual influence that the Teachings of the Buddha had on him. One of the first mentions of this is found in his article "So what are we to do?" (1882-86) , further mention of Buddhism is often found in his diaries. In 1905, an essay appears "Buddha", after which the writer plans to write a whole book (22 chapters!) On the same topic. And although death did not allow him to finish this work, the writer managed to publish several translations of Buddhist Jataka stories and a biography of the Buddha.

Tolstoy's passion to get to the bottom of everything attracted him to the study of Masonic literature . In the early 1950s, Tolstoy read the Masonic magazine Morning Light. Throughout his life, he studied Masonic manuscripts, read many books by Masons, including the book by I. Arndt "On True Christianity" published by Moscow Masons in 1784.

Tolstoy's ideological searches were directly influenced by his personal acquaintance with the Decembrists . In 1860, while traveling through Europe, Tolstoy met in Florence with the Decembrist S. G. Volkonsky (1788-1865), who was released from exile in 1856 and was the former leader of the Southern Society. This meeting made a strong impression on Tolstoy. S. G. Volkonsky, like many Decembrists, was a Freemason. The close connection of the Decembrists with Masonic lodges has already been noted by Soviet researchers.

By the end of the 60s, Tolstoy's serious passion for philosophy of A. Schopenhauer , whose writings aroused "unceasing delight" in him. The pessimistic ethics of Schopenhauer, the teacher of F. Nietzsche, who was convinced that a person himself creates a world of superstitions, demons and gods, and optimism - a bitter mockery of the suffering of a person left to himself, had a significant impact on Tolstoy's worldview. Tolstoy re-read Schopenhauer all his life, he especially liked Aphorisms and Maxims, the philosopher's statements about the frailty of life and the meaning of death. The last entry about reading Schopenhauer's works was made by Tolstoy in his diary shortly before his death: October 7-8, 1910...

The influence of J.-J. Rousseau, freemasonry, the Decembrists, the pessimistic philosophy of A. Schopenhauer, etc. - all this, mixing up, turned in the mind of a brilliant writer into that “devilish mixture”, for the explosion of which a few sparks were enough.

So what did Tolstoy believe in?

Tolstoy admitted the existence of God , since without this, in his opinion, the world and human life are deprived of any rationally expedient explanation, lose their meaning. However, his faith was limited to the recognition of a certain Absolute, which dissolves into the fabric of the Universe.

Tolstoy rejected the doctrine of the Holy Trinity , proving its meaninglessness. Denied the Lord Jesus Christ as a God-Man seeing in him only the greatest preacher, did not believe in his seedless conception and resurrection , did not recognize the afterlife and rewards.

Tolstoy did not recognize icons and treated them with contempt . So, once, while walking around Moscow with one of the Voronezh sectarians, Tolstoy, pointing to the Iberian Icon of the Mother of God, said: "She is mean". Professor S. N. Bulgakov recalled his conversation with L. Tolstoy in Gaspra, in the Crimea, in 1902: “I had the imprudence in a conversation to express my feelings for Raphael's Sistine Madonna, and this mention alone was enough to provoke an attack of breathless, blasphemous malice, bordering on obsession. His eyes lit up with an evil fire, and he began, gasping for breath, to blaspheme.

He was alien to the Christian doctrine of salvation . He did not recognize the inspiration of Holy Scripture . Tolstoy rejected all the sacraments of the Church And the graceful action of the Holy Spirit in them and argued that all church sacraments are nothing more than methods of witchcraft and hypnotization, and all prayers are spells.

At the same time, he sharply criticized the Church.Criticism of the Church was carried out from the position of "common sense", in which Lev Nikolayevich firmly believed. Church doctrine was required to conform to the elementary laws of reason. And since this was not and could not be, Tolstoy triumphantly overthrew it.

However, towards the end of his life, Tolstoy admitted that his concept of "reasonable faith" was illogical and confusing. In the "Diary" of October 17, 1910, the writer makes this bitter confession: "Sri Shankar read. The basic metaphysical thought about the essence of life is good, but the whole teaching is a confusion, worse than mine.

The experience of Leo Tolstoy's religious and ethical searches showed that the writer failed to substantiate his living moral feeling in the sphere of religion. His delusions are typical of all those who try to prove by logical means the necessity of faith in God. This belief always leads to the path of irrationality and mysticism and therefore is unacceptable for thinking people who highly value reliable, scientific knowledge.

St. Theophan the Recluse († 1894) sharply condemned the views and preaching of the count: “In his writings there is blasphemy against God, against Christ the Lord, against the Holy Church and its sacraments. He is the destroyer of the kingdom of truth, the enemy of God, the servant of Satan... This son of demons dared to write a new gospel, which is a distortion of the true gospel.”

The well-known archpriest John of Kronstadt criticized Tolstoy especially sharply: “A daring, notorious atheist, like Judas the traitor… Tolstoy perverted his moral personality to ugliness, to disgust… Tolstoy’s bad manners from his youth and his absent-minded, idle life with adventures in the summer of youth, as can be seen from his own description of his life, were the main reason his radical godlessness; acquaintance with Western atheists helped him to embark on this terrible path even more, and his excommunication by the Holy Synod embittered him to the extreme, offending his count writer's pride, darkening his worldly glory ... oh, how terrible you are, Leo Tolstoy, the offspring of a viper ... »

Also on July 14, 1908, on the eve of Tolstoy's 80th birthday, the Moscow newspaper Novosti dniy published a prayer, according to the editors, composed by John of Kronstadt : “Lord, pacify Russia for the sake of Your Church, for the sake of Your poor people, stop rebellion and revolution, take from the earth Your blasphemer, the most evil and unrepentant Leo Tolstoy and all his ardent followers...”

Excommunication of Leo Tolstoy from the Church

In the late 1990s, Tolstoy's spiritual quest led him to direct blasphemy against the Church.

Since the late 1880s, a number of church hierarchs have appealed to the Synod and to Emperor Alexander III with a call to punish Leo Tolstoy and excommunicate him from the Church, but the emperor replied that he “does not want to add to the glory of the Tolstoy crown of martyrdom.” After the death of Alexander III (†1894), Nicholas II began to receive similar appeals.

It should be noted that the official Church, with great respect for Tolstoy, tried to make contact with him, many times begged Tolstoy to reconsider his views, to recognize their fallacy. In March 1892, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky), visited the writer, but his admonition, apparently, turned out to be fruitless. Metropolitan Anthony treated Tolstoy with great sympathy. His pen belongs to the work "On the moral influence of Tolstoy." However, after the release of The Kreutzer Sonata and Resurrection (1899), it became clear to church and official authorities that there could be no question of any reconciliation between Tolstoy and the Church.

An important factor in the final falling away of L. Tolstoy from the Church was his hostile attitude towards the Orthodox clergy. In his writings and letters, with the zeal of a fanatic, he preaches the overthrow of all the dogmas of the Orthodox Church and the very essence of the Christian faith: "The teaching of the Church is theoretically a cunning and harmful lie."

Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote in his letter to Professor S.A. Rachinsky in 1896: “It is terrible to think of Leo Tolstoy. He spreads throughout Russia a terrible infection of anarchy and unbelief!.. It was as if a demon had taken possession of him - but what to do with him? Obviously, he is an enemy of the Church, an enemy of every government and every civil order. There is a proposal in the Synod to declare him excommunicated from the Church in order to avoid any doubts and misunderstandings among the people, who see and hear that all the intelligentsia worship Tolstoy.

The Church condemned Tolstoy's religious work as sinful and blasphemous, rightly accusing Tolstoy of the most terrible sin - pride, self-deification, arrogant conceit.Nevertheless, in the 1880s, and even in the 1890s, the question of excommunication was not yet seriously raised. The treatises were widely distributed only in Europe, and in Russia handwritten and lithographic copies went from hand to hand. Thus, the Russian reader was not widely familiar with the religious ideas of Leo Tolstoy. And the Church did not want a loud scandal and did not consider it necessary to draw 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.

However novel "Resurrection" (1899), in which, according to the press, Tolstoy "surpassed even himself in attacks on the Church" became "the last straw". In this novel, Tolstoy caricatured the clergy and worship, openly mocked the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It was for the blasphemous chapters 39 and 40 of Resurrection that Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Church, as well as for his other cynical blasphemy.

The Church could not but excommunicate the one who excommunicated himself from his Mother Church and boorishly mocked Her. Only Lenin could compete with Tolstoy in these blasphemous mockeries.

February 24, 1901 in the magazine "Church Gazette" was published Determination with the message of the Holy Synod of February 20 - 22 of the same year on the falling away of Count Leo Tolstoy from the Church. The next day it was published in all major Russian newspapers.

Number of "Church Gazette" with the Definition of the Holy Synod

Tolstoy was not anathematized as many people think. Anathema to Tolstoy was not proclaimed in any of the churches of the Russian Empire. Everything was more prosaic: the newspapers published the Definition of the Holy Synod and that was it.The decision of the Synod regarding Tolstoy is not a curse on the writer, but a statement of the fact that he own will no longer a member of the Church. Moreover, this did not happen by virtue of the Determination issued by the Synod. Everything happened much earlier and by the writer's own will. In addition, the Synodal Act of February 20-22 stated that Tolstoy could return to the Church if he repented, i.e. members of the clergy still hoped that the excommunication would force Tolstoy to "repent and be reunited" with the Church. But Tolstoy never repented...

EXCOMMUNICATION - a form of church punishment, as a result of which a member of the Church is temporarily excluded from church society with a ban on participating in the sacraments and is deprived of certain rights, privileges and spiritual benefits. Among the famous historical figures excommunicated from the Church are Grigory Otrepyev, Ivan Mazepa, Stepan Razin. Excommunication from the Church is divided into great, or anathema (imposed on heretics and apostates), and small or prohibition (imposed by the bishop for violation of church rules and commandments and entailed the temporary deprivation of the excommunicated right to communion, blessing, etc.). At the same time, the anathema has an indefinite period of validity and provides for a ban on any ties between the Church and the excommunicated, and a small excommunication from the Church consists in a temporary ban on participation in religious sacraments and services. An excommunication can be passed by the Holy Synod and canceled upon repentance of the excommunicated.

The responses of the public to the Definition of the Synod were varied. On the one hand, eminent philosophers, theologians, and writers urged Tolstoy to repent and reconcile with the Church; on the other hand, letters and telegrams of sympathy were constantly sent to Tolstoy. There were a lot of those who condemned the decision of the Synod and staged public demonstrations. One of them was a well-known demonstration at an art exhibition in front of a portrait of Tolstoy. There they staged an ovation, began to bring bouquets to the portrait.

As a world-class writer, Tolstoy was at the center of events not only in cultural, but also in political and social life. People then read his books, were fond of his philosophical views. No one then could equal the popularity of Count Tolstoy, who was met by countless crowds of people every time he arrived in Moscow. For these people, Tolstoy was attractive not even for his great novels, but for his journalism, in which he overthrew all the foundations, including Orthodoxy, and proclaimed new principles of life. The influence of Lev Nikolayevich on his contemporaries was colossal. Therefore, the Determination of the Holy Synod in February 1901 discouraged many adherents of Tolstoyism, lovers of literature and cultured people, such as Leskov.

But the text of the Determination of the Holy Synod is, on the one hand, a statement of the fact that Lev Nikolayevich left the Church (and he confirmed this fact), and on the other hand, an exhortation to return to the Church, which Tolstoy did not do. For nine long years the Church has been waiting for the great son of Russia to return to the faith of the fathers. But as Turgenev noted, "Tolstoy is 80,000 leagues around himself." The famous writer did not break out of this vicious circle until his last minute.

Leo Tolstoy's response to his excommunication

Tolstoy responded to his excommunication only a month and a half later, in April 1901.

In a response letter, he first criticized the decision of the Holy Synod, and then listed his key disagreements with Orthodoxy:

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

What I reject the incomprehensible trinity(written with a small letter - ed.) and the fable about the fall of the first man, which has no meaning in our time, the blasphemous story of God, born of the Virgin, redeeming the human race, then this is completely fair. God — spirit, God — love, the only God — the beginning of everything, I not only do not reject, but I do not recognize anything really existing, except God, and I see the whole meaning of life only in the fulfillment of the will of God, expressed in Christian teaching.

<…>If we understand life after death in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment, devils, and paradise - permanent bliss, then it is quite fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife.<…>

It is also said that I reject all sacraments. This is absolutely fair. I consider all the sacraments base, rude, inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching, witchcraft<…>. In infant baptism, I see a clear perversion of all the meaning that baptism could have for adults who consciously accept Christianity; in the performance of the sacrament of marriage over people who were obviously united before, and in allowing divorces and consecrating the marriages of divorced people, I see a direct violation of both the meaning and the letter of the gospel teaching. In the periodic forgiveness of sins at confession, I see a harmful deception that only encourages immorality and destroys the fear of sinning. In unction, as well as in chrismation, I see the methods of gross witchcraft, as well as in the veneration of icons and relics, as well as in all those rites, prayers, spells with which the breviary is filled. In communion I see the deification of the flesh and the perversion of Christian teaching. In the priesthood, in addition to a clear preparation for deceit, I see a direct violation of the words of Christ, which directly forbids anyone to be called teachers, fathers, mentors (Matthew 23: 8-10).

At the end of the letter, Tolstoy succinctly formulates his own "creed":“I believe in the following: I believe in God, whom I understand as a spirit, as love, as the beginning of everything. I believe that he is in me and I am in him. I believe that the will of God is most clearly, most understandably expressed in the teachings of the man Christ, whom I consider to be the greatest blasphemy to understand God and whom to pray to.”

A year after excommunication, in 1902, Tolstoy wrote a blasphemous legend about the devil - "The Destruction and Rebuilding of Hell" . Here is what Tolstoy's wife, Sofya Andreevna, wrote about this legend in her Diary: “This work is imbued with a truly diabolical spirit of denial, malice, mockery of everything in the world, starting with the Church ... And the children - Sasha, still unreasonable, and Masha, alien to me - echoed with hellish laughter the gloating laughter of their father when he finished reading his damn legend, but I wanted to cry ... ".

In the same 1902, Tolstoy wrote his famous "Appeal to the Clergy" , full of such cynical blasphemy that even in Soviet Russia it was published only once, and then only in the 90-volume Complete Works, (precisely in the 34th volume), which is accessible only to specialists, philologists.

"The Legend of the Restoration of Hell" and "Appeal to the Clergy" were published only in German magazines. Responded to this Appeal O. John of Kronstadt. He never wrote about anyone with such extraordinary anger as about Tolstoy: “The hand of Tolstoy rose to write such a vile slander against Russia, against her government! .. Tolstoy thinks, speaks and writes on the basis of godlessness and complete denial of all that saint that bears the stamp of divine revelation; pride, conceit, self-adoration, contempt for God Himself and the Church—this is its fundamental principle; he has no other basis. Before us is a sophist, and ignorant of the truths of the faith, who have not experienced the salvation of the faith of Christ, he can easily distract from the true faith and lead them into pernicious unbelief. the writings of the Old and New Testaments, all worship, all the sacraments, and especially the clergy of all Churches. Tolstoy, distorting the meaning of the Gospel, distorted the meaning of the Old Testament and conveys the distorted events in a mocking tone, undermining any respect for Holy Scripture in the readers; over everything that is dear to a Christian, which he used to look at from childhood with deep reverence and love, as the Word of God, he boldly mocks.
Tolstoy transfers his insults to the clergy, to the Church, to St. Scripture of the Old and New Testaments and on the Lord Himself, and says: "was there such a harmful book in the world that did so much evil as the book of the Old and New Testaments." This directly applies to Tolstoy's writings, there was nothing more harmful than them; Renans, Buchners, Schopenhauers, Voltaires - nothing in comparison with our godless Russian Tolstoy. What Tolstoy wrote in the Appeal - from the Christian point of view - is one madness.(See the book "Father John of Kronstadt and Count Leo Tolstoy" (Jordanville, 1960).

last years of life

The last years of Tolstoy's life were very difficult. A year after excommunication from the Church, from February 1902, Tolstoy's health began to deteriorate: he suffered a long and serious illness. The doctors feared for his life. He had to go to the Crimea and spend more than six months there. At this time, several attempts were made to convince Leo Tolstoy to repent, reconcile with the Church and die. Orthodox Christian. But Tolstoy flatly rejected this possibility: “There can be no talk of reconciliation. I die without any enmity or evil, and what is the church? How can there be reconciliation with such an indefinite subject?

Tolstoy's family life also began to deteriorate and turned into torment both for himself and for his family. Mutual estrangement grows between Tolstoy and his wife and sons. He spoke several times with his wife about a divorce, refused all property. He is often tormented by the thought of leaving home.

IN last years Tolstoy became especially close to his editor and publisher Viktor Chertkov. He writes about him in his diary: “God gave me supreme happiness. He gave me such a friend as Chertkov.”

Leo Tolstoy and his close friend, Tolstoyan leader Vladimir Chertkov (editor and publisher of Leo Tolstoy's works)

In July 1910, under the influence of Chertkov, Tolstoy secretly wrote a testament to the detriment of the interests of his wife and sons, in which he renounced the rights to compositions and, after his death, provided all his writings for editing and publication by V. G. Chertkov.

The only child who supported him was the youngest daughter of the writer Alexandra Lvovna. She was very young, had a special relationship with her father and mother, and was strongly influenced by Chertkov. By the way, it was she who did not let the Optina elder Barsanuphius visit his dying father when he arrived at the Astapovo station in order to reconcile the writer with the Orthodox Church and accept repentance from him. Only 4 years later, in 1914, when she had already got rid of Chertkov's influence, she would not have done so. In more late period of her life, she comprehended the whole story in a completely different way and felt guilty before her mother, and before her father, and before the Orthodox Church. In the last years of her life, she was a deeply religious and church person, led the life of an ascetic, built a church on the territory of the Tolstoy Foundation in the United States.

At 5 am on October 28, 1910, 82-year-old Tolstoy, accompanied by personal doctor D.P. Makovitsky secretly fled from Yasnaya Polyana to the Shamorda Monastery, where his beloved sister, nun Maria Nikolaevna Tolstaya, lived. Tolstoy wanted to settle in the nearby Optina Pustyn Monastery in order to live in solitude, where no one would interfere with him, and to carry out the “hardest obedience” on one condition: not to go to church. However, there could be no talk of church repentance or a formal return to Orthodoxy. Lev Nikolaevich "desired to see hermit elders not as priests, but as hermits, to talk with them about God, about the soul, about hermitage."

Leo Tolstoy and Elder Ambrose of Optina

It is known that Leo Tolstoy traveled to Optina Pustyn and met Father Ambrose . The elder, famous at that time, was praised all over the empire with each other. Tolstoy's sister Maria, who served as a monastic tonsure in the nearby Shamorda, inspired "horror" in the writer with enthusiastic stories about the elder's deeds. Friends, acquaintances, visiting people shared with him their impressions of meetings and stories about Ambrose. Tolstoy listened to all this, thought it over, and made his own shocking conclusions for many. The fact is that Lev Nikolaevich did not accept the eldership itself (and not just personally Ambrose) and considered it a harmful phenomenon.

Not accepting eldership, he listened to his inner voice, and yet he went to Optina precisely to the elders and specifically to Ambrose. Tolstoy entered into disputes with Father Ambrose, tried to announce his theses to him, to convince him, to prove his case. Lev Nikolayevich’s criticism of the elders matured, of course, not immediately, but as his ideology approached religious maximalism and at the peak of this maximalism, Tolstoy met Ambrose of Optinsky.

The elder Ambrose Tolstoy was three times. First time - in 1874 ("Very proud"- Elder Ambrose said after a conversation with the writer), for the second time he came on foot in peasant clothes with his clerk and village teacher in 1881 or 1882 (the distance between Optina Pustyn and Yasnaya Polyana is 200 km). When Tolstoy was with Elder Ambrose, he pointed out to him his peasant clothes. “Yes, what of it?” exclaimed the old man with a smile.

The longest conversation with Fr. Ambrose, Leo Tolstoy, when visiting Optina Hermitage for the third time in 1890 .

If for the first time Leo Tolstoy, after a conversation with Father Ambrose, joyfully said: “This Ambrose is a completely holy man. I talked to him, and somehow it became easy and gratifying in my soul. When you talk to such a person, you feel the closeness of God, then on his third visit to Optina Pustyn, Leo Tolstoy calls Ambrose "miserable with its temptations to the point of impossibility"- it was after the third visit that Tolstoy developed a strong dislike for Elder Ambrose.

After the death of Elder Ambrose, Count Tolstoy began to visit Elder Joseph. Mostly at the time when he was visiting his sister in Shamordino. He would come to Optina on horseback, tie his horse at the skete fence, and, without entering either the skete or the monastery, would go to talk with the elder in order to argue with him about faith.

Optina Pustyn was open to everyone who was ready to come. But you can only get an answer to a question that has been asked, or at least formulated for yourself. And for that, you need to be able to listen. Count Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy did not want to listen to anyone, he needed to be listened to him - with admiration, reverence, praise. However, unlike fiction, in which he was an undoubted genius, in the teaching he created, as it turned out, he had nothing to say. The Optina elders knew this. And he knew that they knew. That's why I came here before my death, but that's another story.

Leo Tolstoy's last visit to Optina Pustyn

The last time Leo Tolstoy came to Optina Pustyn was just before his death. October 28, 1910 . This visit was a surprise for his entourage, and for the family, and for the inhabitants of the monastery. It is surprising that the writer, who for the last 30 years fought against the Orthodox Church and assured that he broke with her forever, came to one of the main monasteries of Orthodoxy.

On the morning of October 29, Lev Nikolaevich twice approached the gates of the skete, but did not dare to enter it. His indecision and hesitation were a sign of an internal struggle. On the same day at three o'clock he left for Shamordino. Many times during this time Tolstoy repeated that he was "excommunicated", and expressed doubts whether the elders would accept him.

Death of Tolstoy

Not daring to meet the Optina elder Joseph on his last visit to Optina, Tolstoy left the monastery and decided to go south with his daughter Alexandra.

On the way, Lev Nikolaevich fell seriously ill. He had to get off the train at Astapovo station. On November 4, Metropolitan Anthony sent a telegram to Astapovo, in which he urged the count to return to the Orthodox Church. At the same time, Anthony forbade the local priest to serve a prayer service for Tolstoy's health.

When the news came to Optina that Lev Nikolaevich was dying, Elder Barsanuphius of Optinsky was sent to him on behalf of the Synod. However, upon the arrival of Barsanuphius in Astapovo, relatives (in particular, the daughter of Alexander Lvovna) did not allow the elder to see the dying writer and did not even inform Tolstoy of his arrival. In his memoirs, Barsanuphius complained: “They didn’t let me see Tolstoy… I prayed to doctors, relatives, nothing helped… Although he was Leo, he couldn’t break the ring of the chain with which Satan bound him.” Tolstoy died without repentance.

On November 9, 1910, several thousand people gathered in Yasnaya Polyana for the funeral of Leo Tolstoy. Among those present were the writer's friends and admirers of his work, local peasants and Moscow students. Government did not take part in the civil funeral of Tolstoy. It was the first public funeral in Russia famous person, which were not supposed to pass according to the Orthodox rite (without priests and prayers, without candles and icons), as Tolstoy himself wished. On November 10 (23), 1910, Leo Tolstoy was buried in Yasnaya Polyana, on the edge of a ravine in the forest.

Secret funeral of Tolstoy

When there was a discussion about whether Tolstoy would be buried when he died, there was a secret order from the Synod of Tolstoy not to be buried or commemorated. On this occasion, Tolstoy's wife Sofya Andreevna said that for sure there would be a priest who could be bribed, and he would perform the rite of burial. By the way, in 1912, when Tolstoy was already in the damp earth, this was done. Who this priest is, no one knows, and what prompted the “priest” to perform the funeral service is also unknown.

The case of Tolstoy's "secret" funeral caused a lot of different rumors and responses in the press. The clergy were especially indignant. The fact of the funeral service at Tolstoy's grave according to the Orthodox rite excited the Synod. The police became interested in the personality of the priest who dared to violate the order of the Synod. A brigade was sent from Tula to Yasnaya Polyana, consisting of a local bailiff, a constable and a guard. They made an inquiry, interrogating the servants, the gardener, the coachmen, as well as the peasants in the village. As a result of the investigation, it was established that the 27-year-old priest of the village of Ivankov, Pereyaslavsky district (near Boripol, Ukraine), Grigory Kalinovsky, who served as a priest for 2 years, performed the memorial service and funeral service. In his house in boxes desk Correspondence on this subject with Sophia Tolstoy was found, and various forbidden literature by Tolstoy was found in cabinets and whatnots.

Here is the text of the first letter addressed to Tolstoy's widow:

Dear Sophia Andreevna!

Over the ashes of the deceased Great Writer of our land, according to the condemnation of official Orthodoxy, the established funeral service was not performed on the grounds that the Great Man “fell away” from the church and is its enemy. Since official Orthodoxy condemned him, since the Great One is allegedly an enemy, and according to the commandment of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the all-forgiving beginning - “pray for your enemies, do good to those who hate you ...“

I believe that it is hard and unpleasant for the relatives and friends of the deceased to see this ... God is his judge, and not we and not the Synod. As an Orthodox priest, if Your Excellency pleases and desires, I will appear on the day appointed by you at Yasnaya Polyana at the grave of the Great Writer and, according to the Orthodox rite, perform a funeral service over the ashes with the reading of a permissive prayer, pray for the repose of the servant of God Leo.

If Your Excellency finds my proposals acceptable to himself, according to his convictions and desires, he will deign to notify me at the address below, and I will fulfill my promise and at the same time my desire. I ask, Your Excellency, to keep this letter, and especially my last name, a secret, and it is best to return it back to me, and destroy the envelope, because there may be bad consequences for me.

Admirer of talent priest Grigory Kalinovsky.

Address: m. Boryspil, Poltava province, with. Ivankovo, Priest Grigory Kalinovsky"

I must say that the fate of this priest after the funeral of Tolstoy turned out to be tragic. Six months after the funeral service, Kalinovsky fell seriously ill: doctors found he had a "nervous breakdown and a predisposition to tuberculosis." And after some time, a series of tragic events occurred in the life of Father Gregory: he began to drink heavily, in a strong drunkenness he committed the murder of a peasant through the negligence, for which he was deprived of his priesthood. After 3 years, he found himself without a livelihood and in August 1917 he voluntarily went to war. The further fate of the priest who prayed "for the sinful soul of the servant of God Leo" is unknown.

Conclusion

L. N. Tolstoy left this life as an implacable enemy of the Orthodox Church. As the elder of Optina Barsanuphius said about him, “although he is a lion, he could not break the rings of the chain with which Satan bound him.”

Some representatives of the Orthodox community expressed the opinion that at the end of his life the writer may have experienced hesitation and thought about returning to Orthodoxy. However, there is no documentary evidence of "Tolstoy's hesitation".

Despite this, for more than 100 years there have been people in Russia demanding Tolstoy's "rehabilitation" and wondering why there is no cross on the writer's grave. To those who are indignant at the absence of a cross on Tolstoy's grave, the writer himself gave the answer: “I really renounced the church, stopped performing its rites and wrote in my will to my relatives that when I die, they would not allow church ministers to see me and my dead body would be removed as soon as possible, without any spells and prayers over it, as they remove any nasty and unnecessary thing, so that it does not interfere with the living.

Material prepared by Sergey SHULYAK

In 1901, the Holy Synod adopted a Resolution, which recorded the fact of "falling away" from the Church of Leo Tolstoy. The initiator in this case was Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) of St. Petersburg and Ladoga, who on February 11, 1901 sent a letter to the Chief Procurator (who was not a member of the Synod), in which he stated: “Now in the Synod everyone has come to the idea of ​​the need to publish in "Church Gazette" of the synodal judgment on Count Tolstoy. Pobedonostsev did not put up any obstacles and wrote the initial text of the Synodal Determination himself; in order to soften the tone of the Definition and to make it have the character of evidence of Tolstoy's independent falling away from the Church, changes were made to its text by Metropolitan Anthony and other members of the Synod during the meeting of February 20-22 (O.S.), 1901.

Metropolitan Anthony

On February 24, 1901, in the official organ of the Holy Governing Synod - the journal "Church Gazette" - the Definition was published with the message of the Holy Synod No. 557 of February 20 - 22 of the same year on the falling away of Count Leo Tolstoy from the Church. The next day it was published in all major Russian newspapers.

In the Russian Empire of the 18th century, not only criminals against faith and the Church were anathematized, but also state criminals. Anathema often entailed a civil penalty:
1666: Archpriest Avvakum was stripped and anathematized.

Burning of Archpriest Avvakum

1671: Razin, Stepan

The execution of Stepan Razin

1775: Pugachev, Emelyan (anathema removed before execution).

The execution of Yemelyan Pugachev

And Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, 1901, got into this list, I wonder why?

In the last two decades of the life of L. N. Tolstoy, being a believer, baptized in Orthodoxy, in a number of works, especially in the novel “ Resurrection”(1899) clearly showed that he did not accept a number of the most important dogmas of the Orthodox Church.

He also distributed pamphlets describing his own non-Orthodox understanding of Christianity.
Tolstoy's life teaching was influenced by a variety of ideological currents: Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Islam, Quakerism, as well as the teachings of moral philosophers (Socrates, the late Stoics, Kant, Schopenhauer). Tolstov affirms the priority of the Gospel over the rest of the books of the Bible. In the 1880s, on the basis of the teachings of L. N. Tolstoy, Tolstoyism arose in Russia. The Tolstoyans criticized the Orthodox Church and the official religion in general, as well as state violence and social inequality.

Leo Tolstoy and Vladimir Chertkov

The Tolstoyans were actively engaged in enlightenment and dissemination of Tolstoy's views. The Tolstoyans V. G. Chertkov and P. I. Biryukov founded the Posrednik publishing house, which published mass editions of books for the people: works by L. N. Tolstoy, G. I. Uspensky, A. P. Chekhov and other writers, manuals on agronomy, veterinary medicine, hygiene. In 1901-1905, the Tolstoyans published the Free Word newspaper in London. In 1897, Tolstoyism was declared a harmful sect in Russia.

In 1901, the Holy Synod officially declared that “Tolstoy himself rejected all communion with the Church”, renounced it, and therefore is no longer a member of it. Tolstoy's supporters were arrested and deported.

In April 1901, L. N. Tolstoy on the Definition of the Synod:

“At first I didn’t want to answer the decision of the Synod about me, but this decision caused a lot of letters in which correspondents unknown to me - some scold me for rejecting what I do not reject, others exhort me to believe in what I that I have not ceased to believe, still others express with me unanimity, which hardly exists in reality, and sympathy, to which I hardly have the right; and I decided to answer both the decision itself, pointing out what is unjust in it, and The resolution of the Synod generally has many shortcomings: it is illegal or deliberately ambiguous, it is arbitrary, unfounded, untruthful and, moreover, contains slander and incitement to bad feelings and actions.

It is illegal or deliberately ambiguous - because if it wants to be an excommunication from the church, then it does not satisfy those church rules according to which such an excommunication can be pronounced; if it is a declaration that he who does not believe in the Church and its dogmas does not belong to it, then this is self-evident and such a declaration cannot have any other purpose than that, without being in essence excommunication, it would appear as such, which actually happened, because that is how it was understood.<…>It is, finally, an incitement to bad feelings and deeds, since, as it should have been expected, in people who are unenlightened and unreasonable, anger and hatred towards me, reaching even threats of murder and expressed in the letters I receive.<…>So the decision of the Synod is generally very bad. The fact that at the end of the decree it is said that the persons who signed it are so sure of their rightness that they pray that God will make me for my good the same as they are, does not make it better.

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

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

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

It is also said that I reject all sacraments. This is absolutely fair. I consider all the sacraments base, rude, inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching, witchcraft and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel. In infant baptism, I see a clear perversion of all the meaning that baptism could have for adults who consciously accept Christianity; in the performance of the sacrament of marriage over people who were obviously united before, and in allowing divorces and consecrating the marriages of divorced people, I see a direct violation of both the meaning and the letter of the gospel teaching. In the periodic forgiveness of sins at confession, I see a harmful deception that only encourages immorality and destroys the fear of sinning. In unction, as well as in chrismation, I see the methods of gross witchcraft, as well as in the veneration of icons and relics, as well as in all those rites, prayers, spells with which the breviary is filled. In communion I see the deification of the flesh and the perversion of Christian teaching. In the priesthood, besides a clear preparation for deceit, I see a direct violation of the words of Christ, which expressly forbids anyone to be called teachers, fathers, mentors (Matt. 23:8-10).

Finally, it is said, as the last and highest degree of my guilt, that I, "cursing over the most sacred objects of faith, did not shudder to mock the most sacred of the sacraments - the Eucharist." The fact that I did not shudder to describe simply and objectively what the priest does to prepare this so-called sacrament is completely just; but the fact that this so-called sacrament is something sacred, and that it is blasphemy to describe it simply as it is done, is completely unjust. It is not blasphemy to call a partition a partition, and not an iconostasis, and a cup a cup, and not a chalice, etc., but the most terrible, incessant, outrageous blasphemy lies in the fact that people, using all possible means of deception and hypnotization - they assure children and simple people that if you cut pieces of bread in a certain way and while pronouncing certain words and put them in wine, then God enters into these pieces; and that the one in whose name a living piece is taken out will be healthy; in the name of whom such a piece is taken out of the deceased, then it will be better for him in the next world; and that whoever has eaten this piece, God Himself will enter into him.

After all, it's terrible!

I believe in the following: I believe in God, whom I understand as a spirit, as love, as the beginning of everything. I believe that he is in me and I am in him. I believe that the will of God is most clearly, most understandably expressed in the teaching of the man Christ, whom I consider to be the greatest blasphemy to understand God and whom to pray to.

“He who begins by loving Christianity more than the truth will very soon love his church or sect more than Christianity, and end up loving himself (his peace of mind) more than anything,” said Coleridge.

I was walking backwards. I started by loving my Orthodox faith more than my peace, then I loved Christianity more than my church, but now I love the truth more than anything in the world. And until now, the truth coincides for me with Christianity, as I understand it. And I profess this Christianity; and to the extent that I confess it, I live calmly and joyfully, and calmly and joyfully approach death.
Lev Tolstoy.
April 4, 1901. Moscow

Tolstoy rejected the doctrine of the Trinity of God, the infallible authority of the Ecumenical Councils, the sacraments of the Church, the virgin birth, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his divinity. At the same time, he sharply criticized the Church for the fact that, in his opinion, she puts her interests higher than the original Christian ideals.

Illustration for the essay by L. N. 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 the role of Tolstoy 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 Orekhanov.

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

However, if Tolstoy the artist is certainly considered a genius, then his religious views have always caused and 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, they are talking about the revival of Tolstoyanism. To find out what historical realities are behind this, we turned to the priest Georgy Orekhanov, who recently defended his doctoral dissertation on the relationship between Leo Tolstoy and the Church.

Anathema or excommunication?

Father George, the story of the writer Kuprin is widely known about the proclamation of an anathema to Leo Tolstoy right in the church during the service and that the rebellious deacon, who read Tolstoy all night before, on the contrary, proclaims to him for many years. How does the story correspond to historical reality? Was it all like that?

Of course not. This is entirely a 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 much 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 of February 20-22 was not read in churches. It was published in Tserkovnye Vedomosti and then reprinted by all the leading Russian newspapers. Therefore, the alleged public anathematization of Tolstoy right during the church service is a complete fabrication.

It must be understood that the Synodal definition regarding Tolstoy is not his curse, not a wish for harm to the great writer or his eternal death. The Church simply stated that Tolstoy was no longer a member of the Church, because he himself wanted to be. Moreover, in the synodal act of February 20-22, it was said that Tolstoy could return to the Church again, subject to repentance. However, Tolstoy himself, and his entourage, and the majority of Russian people perceived this definition as some kind of unjustifiably cruel act. When Tolstoy arrived at Optina Hermitage, when asked why he did not go to the elders, he replied that, well, I was excommunicated.

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

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

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

At the same time, the Church has repeatedly emphasized the wrongness of Tolstoy. On this occasion, they entered into correspondence with the writer, representatives of the Church met and talked. For example, in the autumn of 1879, when the writer's new views were fully defined, L. N. Tolstoy met in Moscow with hierarchs authoritative in the theological environment - 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 the elders, who said: what Tolstoy preaches is neither Orthodox nor Christianity in general, but Tolstoy did not agree with this.

Nevertheless, in the 1880s, and even in the early 1890s, the question of excommunication was not yet seriously raised. The treatises were widely distributed only in Europe, and in Russia handwritten and lithographic copies went from hand to hand. Thus, the Russian reader was not widely familiar with the religious ideas of Leo Tolstoy. And the Church did not want a loud scandal and did not consider it necessary to draw 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, then happened.

However, the situation changed radically after Tolstoy published the novel Resurrection. It was released both in Russia (of course, with large censorship exceptions), and in Europe, and in huge circulations. That is, this time a lot of Russian readers got acquainted with the novel. The Resurrection, among other things, contained a grotesque, or rather blasphemous, depiction of the Eucharist. In fact, Tolstoy directly began to mock the most sacred, the Church Sacraments. After that, the Church found itself in a very difficult position. It was no longer possible to remain silent. An ambiguous situation arose - Tolstoy calls himself a Christian, but at the same time treats the Church, its Sacraments and church teaching with contemptuous mockery. What to do? And when, in 1900, the comparatively young bishop Metropolitan Anthony (Vadkovsky) became the leading member of the Synod, the decision ripened to define Tolstoy. But it was clear that it should not be clothed in a very rigid, categorical form. Notice that the words "anathema" and "excommunication" are missing from this definition. Nevertheless, it unequivocally asserts that Tolstoy himself cut himself off 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 else?

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

- Excommunication and anathema - is it, in general, the same thing or not?

Exist different types church excommunication. Anathema is the most severe form of it. 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 death. Of course, the anathema also implies a complete exclusion from participation in the Church Sacraments, primarily from participation in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is necessary to distinguish from anathema the temporary excommunication of a member of the Church from church communion, which serves as a punishment for less grave sins. Few, probably, know that the writer Gorky was subjected to such excommunication for 7 years for attempting suicide. For Gorky himself, this, however, did not matter at all, because he, formally being a baptized Orthodox person, was in fact very far from the Church.

Thus, anathema is, in a sense, a global excommunication, which is proclaimed not just for some specific committed sin, but for active, conscious opposition to the Church and its teachings. Temporary excommunication is a prohibition to participate in the Sacraments for a certain period, which can be quite long. For example, in the ancient Church, for special sins, for example, murder or fornication, they were excommunicated from church fellowship for very long periods. But this is not yet anathema. Anathema is an excommunication for a conscious and fierce 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 already after the exhortations and denunciations from the Church, when the person continued to persist and say things that were absolutely incompatible with church teaching. With Tolstoy there was just such a situation.

- And to whom else in Russian history was anathema proclaimed?

It should be emphasized that in Russian history the anathema has always been proclaimed very restrainedly and cautiously, and only in relation to irreconcilable instigators of schisms or heretics. Here are the cases: Strigolniki, Novgorod heretics of the 14th century, Dmitry Tveritinov and his supporters, iconoclast heretics of the early 18th century. In addition, the church anathema was proclaimed for grave crimes against the state, which were almost always accompanied by a speech 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 are listed against certain groups of heretics, imposed by the ancient Church. 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 anything, and he cannot be excommunicated from the Church for this. But Tolstoy did not just think and not just speak, he spread his views in huge circulations. 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 entailed Tolstoy's excommunication if he had not begun to laugh at the Liturgy, which is dearest to a believer. 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 opponent?

No, of course not right away. For Tolstoy, everything went in waves, he experienced several spiritual crises in his life. The most severe crisis occurred at the end of the 1870s - the beginning of the 1880s, when Tolstoy was trying to become, to put it simply, an Orthodox person. He goes to services, prays, participates in the Sacraments. The last time in his life Tolstoy took communion in April 1878. And after that, he suddenly realizes that Orthodox dogma 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 several such attempts to become a member of the Church. Tolstoy at least six times in his life came to Optina Hermitage, met with the elder Ambrose and other elders, and talked with them. But after a spiritual upheaval, which Tolstoy himself dates back to 1881, he decided for himself that his whole life is divided into two parts - that which was before 1881, and after 1881. After that, he already firmly and consistently distances himself from the Orthodox Church.

- Before his death, he also visited Optina Pustyn?

Unfortunately for all of us, he did not find the strength to cross the threshold of the Optina Skete, where he could meet two wonderful elders who were there at that moment - this is Elder Joseph (Litovkin) and Elder Varsonofy (Plikhankov). There is a very interesting description of witnesses, two Optina novices who saw with their own eyes how Tolstoy approached the skete of Optina Hermitage several times, but something prevented him from entering the skete first and asking for a conversation. Then he told his sister that if he had been called, he would have gone. This was about 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 see his sister, nun Maria, after which he went along railway, and one gets the impression 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 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 to the south, or somewhere else.

Why didn't the monks themselves invite Tolstoy to cross the threshold of the Optina Skete? 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, due to his physical condition, could not go to him, or he was not told that Tolstoy had arrived. This meeting, unfortunately, did not take place. But when Tolstoy himself was already lying ill at the Astapovo station, Elder Joseph sent a telegram from Optina Hermitage that he was ready to leave for him for a conversation. And a very big trouble lies in the fact that the people who surrounded the sick Tolstoy at that moment did not show him this telegram.

- Who is this?

This is primarily Vladimir Grigorievich Chertkov and the youngest daughter of the writer Alexander Lvovna. It must be said that Alexandra Lvovna then 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 several other telegrams from the bishops. For example, in the telegram of 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 have been constantly praying and praying that the Lord will return you to the Church. Perhaps He will soon call you to His judgment, and I now implore you, who are sick, to be reconciled with the Church and the Orthodox Russian people. God bless and keep you." The Tambov Bishop Kirill (Smirnov), the former vicar of Vladyka Anthony, also sent his telegram, in which he spoke of his readiness to arrive at the Astapovo station.

Why didn't they tell Tolstoy about all this?

The official version of the people surrounding the writer was that the sick writer, who had bilateral pneumonia and a high fever, was not to be disturbed. They said that if Tolstoy found out that the elder Barsanuphius had arrived, and if they met, then this could excite him so much that his situation would worsen. But I doubt it very much. In my book The Russian Orthodox Church and Leo Tolstoy, I cite the testimony of doctors who wrote about how Tolstoy's illness proceeded. And just on the day when the elder arrived, Tolstoy's temperature subsided and his situation improved. In general, it is difficult to imagine how the meeting, which he himself was looking for, could worsen his physical condition.

- Did the youngest daughter of the writer, Alexandra Lvovna, also 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 the position of Alexandra Lvovna changed seriously in the future. This is also evidenced by the fact that she quarreled with Chertkov. In addition, after the revolution, she was imprisoned more than once, and she was even in one of the first camps, which was located on the territory of the Novospassky Monastery. And there is evidence 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 of her, published in the magazine " New world". When she died in 1979, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Filaret (Voznesensky), who said at the funeral, said the wonderful word that the Church mourns with Alexandra Lvovna and members of the Tolstoy family about what happened to the great writer.

The Eucharist as a 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 staged public demonstrations. One of them was a well-known demonstration at an art exhibition in front of a portrait of Tolstoy. There they staged an ovation, 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 is nothing wrong with the fact that the Synod forbids rejoicing with Tolstoy. We, Blok said, have long since learned both to rejoice and to grieve without the Synod. Moreover, not only representatives of the intelligentsia had a negative attitude towards the act of the Synod, but also, for example, part of the bureaucratic bureaucracy.

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

There are reasons both objective and subjective. The objective reasons are that Tolstoy is stuck in the Enlightenment in its French version. It is no coincidence that he loved Rousseau so much. And the main idea of ​​Rousseau is that there is no corruption in a person, that he is good in his naturalness, and this naturalness is opposed by culture and civilization. The aim 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 the civilization and culture of his day. The Church's point of view is completely different. The initial 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 takes place only with God's help. But this is precisely what Tolstoy categorically denies.

Was it always unacceptable for 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 corrupted, that he can achieve everything by his own strength. Therefore, the Savior - in his church understanding - is not needed by a person. 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, 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 receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It was just a personal anguish for him.

But we can also assume a subjective moment here, but these are only our hypotheses. Perhaps, at the level of personal meetings, something happened that offended him very much. In what Tolstoy writes about the Church, there is an element of strong personal resentment, dissatisfaction and irritation. Many of Tolstoy's contemporaries took similar positions, but none of them wrote as sharply about the Church as he did. The question arises: if a person preaches what we now call tolerance and tolerance for other people's views, why does he himself write such things about the Church? Perhaps because the person is personally very offended by something. But what it could be, we will not know. Maybe it was some kind of meeting. He also met with many prominent church contemporaries, with Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), went specially to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, met with many theologians. Perhaps someone said something to him that could offend him and dislike him very much.

Tbullying is reborn again

- Is Tolstoyism a sectarianism, a heresy? What is it all about?

On the one hand, Tolstoyism is those people who tried to fulfill the precepts of Tolstoy in the field practical life and organized agricultural communities. As a rule, this ended in failure. It turned out that Russian intellectuals were not good 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 extraordinarily alive even now. In my opinion, it even revives again. This happens when we read the speeches of politicians or actors, in general representatives of the intelligentsia, who say that in Christianity it is not the mystical and dogmatic side that is important, but the moral side - do not harm others, fulfill the commandments, and so on. When they say this, they, perhaps without realizing it themselves, are preaching views quite close to Tolstoy. These are Tolstoyans in a new, modern wrapping. This Tolstoyanism is present throughout the history of the twentieth century. Both here in Russia and in Europe.

Monument to Leo Tolstoy in the museum-estate of the writer in Moscow. Photo from RIA-Novosti archive

- This is very close to Kant ...

Yes, sure. In fact, this is one of the products of the Reformation, and a very late one, which Luther himself would have repudiated and recognized as heresy. But Luther's ideas changed greatly over time. You are right that Tolstoy preached that view of Christianity which was very popular in Germany and in general in Europe. 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 you know, 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 like his followers, the Tolstoyans, too much?

- Yes its true. For example, when in 1909 a village teacher asked Lev Nikolaevich where to find Tolstoy’s agricultural colonies, he answered sharply (which was not typical of the writer) that he did not know this and generally considered the establishment of colonies or communities with a special charter “for moral perfection useless and rather harmful” *.

- What was it connected with?

I can make such a hypothesis. Tolstoy, on the one hand, posed rather burning, serious questions of Russian life. After all, the Russian peasantry then accounted for 80-86% of the population of Russia. And Tolstoy wrote a lot about his troubles and problems. On the other hand, for all his aspiration to the people, he remained a refined 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 be sympathetic 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 a long time. For example, the files of the Tolstoyans in the FSB archive testify 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 Tolstoy 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 decay of the Russian state?

I personally believe that I contributed, although here, of course, you need to be very careful. It is necessary to study more precisely the circulation of Tolstoy's books in Russia, who read them, what conclusions were drawn from what they read. However, there are real documents that show that certain journalistic articles by Tolstoy, for example, the famous "Soldier's Memo", contributed to the decomposition of the army. The members of the Social Democratic Party themselves pointed to this, although both Tolstoy and his ideas were very far from the ideas of the Social Democrats. As you know, he preached non-resistance to evil by 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 by 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 from their letters, from their diaries, from their memoirs.

- Such an anti-scientific question: if Tolstoy had lived until 1917, how would he react to the revolution?

Certainly negative. He, of course, understood that an attempt to achieve positive goals by violent, bloody means was futile. Of course, he would not accept the revolution, but the more interesting question is, would Tolstoy realize 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 put all the blame for the revolutionary catastrophe on Tolstoy.

In general, what lessons can we draw today from Tolstoy's spiritual search? Say, are we entitled, since he was excommunicated from the Church, to simply dismiss his religious-philosophical writings and not even take them into our hands? 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 vogue, although few people seriously read the writer, because, for example, to understand his diary, you need to make quite serious efforts. However, priests often meet with such 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 highlights the moral basis in human experience in such a way. Therefore, we cannot do without Tolstoy's treatises here. But at the same time, one 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 that someone read them.

I believe that they may be of great interest, first of all, to those who study the religious history of Russia and Europe in 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 writings Tolstoy poses the most important, burning social questions of that time, the cardinal questions of Russian life, and therefore they may be of interest to those who are interested in social and cultural history Russia of the nineteenth century.

Finally, some of the writer's works, primarily the well-known "Confession" and little-known, except for specialists, diary, vividly demonstrate the features of the religious biography of a Russian educated person of that time. From this point of view, Leo Tolstoy's diary is an interesting source on the history of Russian spiritual culture.

But, I repeat, the reading of 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.

REFERENCE:

Anathema, or great excommunication, (Greek τό

ἀνάθεμα) - imposed by the highest church instance

tion applies to apostates and heretics. She

has an indefinite period of validity and provides for

prohibits any form of church fellowship with

excommunicated. The anathema can be lifted in case of

anathematized repentance.

Prohibition, or small excommunication, (Greek ό

ἀφορισμός) - imposed by the ecclesiastical authority of the region

ononal or local level for violation of church

nyh rules and deviation from the commandments. It consists

in a temporary ban on participation in certain churches

the fore Sacraments, for example, in communion.

In the history of the Russian Orthodox Church anathema,

in particular, surrendered:

1604 - For conspiring with heretics and going over to the side

Polish interventionists were anathematized by Gregory

Otrepiev.

1671 - Was anathematized "a thief and apostate

and abuser of the Holy Church" Stepan Razin with all

his associates.

1708 - "For the transgression and betrayal of the great

sir” was proclaimed anathema to Ivan Mazepa.

1775 - Anathema imposed on Emelyan Pugachev

before the execution was removed for the fact that Pugachev "with

heartbreak repented of his sins

yah before God." It has also been removed for

Pugachev's comrades-in-arms sentenced to death, except for

stubborn schismatic A. Perfiliev: “... according to the schismatic

he did not want to confess

to receive and receive divine communion."

1997 - at the Bishops' Council of Russian Orthodox

Noah Church was anathematized Filaret Denisenko,

former Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine Rus-

of the Orthodox Church for “not heeding the image

to him on behalf of the Mother Church the call to

repentance and continued during the inter-council period

kolniki activity, which he extended for

limits of the Russian Orthodox Church, contributing to

deepening the schism in the Bulgarian Orthodox

Church and accepting into fellowship schismatics from other