Alexey Tolstoy Against the Current (collection). Alexey TolstoyAgainst the Current (collection) Rejection of the former life

E.G. Etkind

For honor you will learn to lay down destruction,
And so, having swallowed the Tatar to his heart’s content.
You will call it Russia.
Alexey Tolstoy. "Snake Tugarin" 1867

The infinite will prevail over the finite.
"Against the stream". 1867

Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy was almost the same age as Fet: three years older. Both of them are poets of the prose era, when writing “in verse, and most importantly, thinking in poetic images, meant overcoming enormous resistance from both the surrounding fellow writers and the reading preferences. What was immediately understood in the twenties and thirties now, starting in the forties, caused bewilderment. Leo Tolstoy’s attitude towards Shakespeare is characteristic: the monologues of “King Lear” seemed to him a pile of absurdities, the ravings of a crazy old man - this is how a prose writer perceives poetry; he saw in Baudelaire, Verlaine, Mallarmé swindlers who fooled gullible readers. Fet was mocked; so many parodies were never written about anyone; even Dostoevsky, even Saltykov-Shchedrin laughed at what seemed to them absurdities. This is understandable: Fet boldly went against the prevailing tastes; his irrational lyricism violated all the laws of prosaic logic. He was right when he wrote to Ya. Polonsky and K.R.: “Whoever unfolds my poems will see a man with dull eyes, with crazy words and foam on his lips, running over stones and thorns in tattered clothes.” This is how Fet saw himself through the eyes of prose readers of his time.

Alexei Tolstoy has similar lines written thirty years earlier:

When in a crowd you meet a man who is naked;
Whose forehead is darker than the foggy Kazbek, whose step is uneven;
Whose hair is raised in disorder, Who, crying out,
Always trembling in a nervous fit, - Know - it’s me!

The poem is called “To my Portrait” (1856); A. Tolstoy wrote this not from himself, but from the comic author Kozma Prutkov, composed by him (together with friends), who parodies romantic poets pretending to be madmen. Fet could declare, after the above lines: “Everyone has the right to turn away from an unfortunate madman, but no one conscientious will suspect mannerisms and pretense.” A. Tolstoy himself was infinitely far from any poetic madness, but he valued Fet very highly: “He will remain forever,” he exclaimed. And in another letter, a few years later: “Why have you been writing so little lately?.., since you are a lyrical poet, then everything that surrounds you, even prose and disgusting, can serve as a negative challenge for you for poetry. Is it possible that the bestial glance of Russian feuilletons at you can discourage you?..”

The most complete and most enthusiastic assessment of Fet was given by Tolstoy after reading his collection “Poems” (1863): “...I finally became acquainted with his book - there are poems where the smell of sweet peas, clover, where the smell turns into the color of mother-of-pearl, and moonlight or the light of dawn shimmers into sound. Fet is one of a kind, has no equal in any literature, and he is much higher than his time, which does not know how to appreciate him. What the f*ck time is this!”

This review - one of the most insightful - is surprising for a contemporary and non-like-minded person.

Fet, however, did not reciprocate Tolstoy: he did not understand and did not like his work. Arguing in a letter to Sophia Engelhardt (October 14, 1862) that in the current troubled situation there cannot be real poets, that “only in the silence of serenity can free art sound,” and “now everything is shaken up,” Fet continues: “But true the modern hero is, after all, Alexei Tolstoy. If his things were only bad, it would not be worth talking about it, but he, as he himself declares, pretends to be pure art, and then gives things literally worse than a walk in Maryina Roshcha and all the lackey literature. “Don Juan” is worse than Rostopchina’s poems, that is, the last degree, I won’t say mediocrity, I won’t say narrow-mindedness, ignorance, but worst of all, bad taste... His worldview is worthy of a freed self-taught lackey.”

Years passed, six years later Fet and Tolstoy met in Orel, then Fet visited Tolstoy in Krasny Rog and later, in the book of his memoirs, he wrote: “... I consider myself happy that I met in life such a morally healthy, widely an educated, knightly noble and femininely gentle man, like the late Count Alexei Konstantinovich.”

The relationship of these passages is instructive; after all, both Fetov’s judgments are undoubtedly sincere. And both of them should be approached with the caution and impartiality of a historian.

A. Tolstoy had it almost as hard as Fet; he, too, was often a victim of “bestial” feuilletonists, but he was aesthetically much more adapted to the world around him than Fet, although he expressed his poetic credo in a poem defiantly entitled: “Against the Current” (1867). It contains an appeal addressed to poets by the “prose writers” and materialists of the sixties:

Friends, do you hear a deafening cry:
“Surrender, singers and artists! By the way
Are your inventions in our positive age?
Are there many of you left, dreamers?
Surrender to the onslaught of new times!
The world has become sober, hobbies have passed -
Where can you, an outdated tribe, stand against the current?

To this appeal, A. Tolstoy, on behalf of “singers and artists,” responds with a decisive statement: “The infinite will prevail over the finite...” Once upon a time, the same poem says, the scribes insisted that Jesus was crucified and that “there is no use in ridiculed, // Hated, insane teaching,” and the Byzantine iconoclasts boasted that they “renewed the world... with the power of thinking. // Why should the vanquished argue with art // Against the tide?” Meanwhile, “art” and “crazy teaching” won, and not reasonable renovations. The belief that in art the infinite will overcome the finite unites both poets of the “prose era” - Fet and Alexei Tolstoy (Tyutchev is older than both of them - he was formed as a poet in Pushkin’s time).

The poem “Against the Current” is programmatic (it was not for nothing that Tolstoy was going to open the second collection of his poems to them). It is important for Alexei Tolstoy, first of all, to defend the power of art, the independence of poetry, for which the infinite is higher than the finite, the human is higher than the social, the eternal is higher than the historical. This is the grain of Tolstoy’s worldview, the basis of his late romanticism; This is the meaning of the ahistorical position of this seemingly historical writer. The struggle against the dominant prose of his time is Tolstoy's central idea.

A. Tolstoy's literary heritage is small: together with children's diaries and letters - four volumes. However, it is varied: lyrical and satirical poems, ballads, five romantic poems and stories in verse, five poetic plays, a historical novel, several stories in prose. The fate of these works is different. Perhaps the most famous of them, which has survived to this day, is the novel from the era of Ivan the Terrible “Prince Silver”. It is recognized as one of the best Russian historical novels - however, in Russian literature of the 19th century this genre did not receive much development, and after Pushkin’s experiments (“The Blackamoor of Peter the Great”), A. Tolstoy’s book looks like a lightweight narrative for youth; it has become a favorite reading for intelligent teenagers these days. Lyrical poems, much inferior to the poems of Tolstoy's contemporaries such as Tyutchev and Fet - they bear the stamp of poetic timelessness and decline of taste - gained great popularity thanks to numerous composers who set them to music, creating widespread salon romances; among these composers are P. Tchaikovsky (13 romances), N. Rimsky-Korsakov (13), A. Taneyev, S. Rachmaninov (8), A. Rubinstein (12), Ts. Cui (18), M. Mussorgsky ( 5). “Alexey Tolstoy,” admitted P. Tchaikovsky, “is an inexhaustible source for texts to music; this is one of the most sympathetic poets to me.”

More stable and much more reliable is the success of satirical and humorous poems by A. Tolstoy - such as “The wicked murderer thrust the dagger...” (1860?), “History of the Russian State from Gostomysl to Timashev” (1868), “Popov’s Dream” (1873) , - they circulated in countless lists during the author’s lifetime and turned into intellectual folklore. About “Popov’s Dream” Alexey Tolstoy admitted: “... I lost count of all the lists that were removed from it.” Even in our time, more than a century later, these poems remained popular - they were immortalized by their brilliant and light wit, satirical brightness, which has not faded either with time or with changes in political regimes, and with a wonderful poetic technique. Alexei Tolstoy's satire turned out to be unusually relevant many decades later, when thousands of those arrested had to give fantastic testimony and come up with lists of accomplices. What Tolstoy wrote about with playful mischief turned out to be completely sad.

The brilliance of Tolstoy's satires is a consequence of his amazing comic talent; however, it was also generated by the political position of Alexei Tolstoy. Tolstoy never denied his commitment to monarchism. “But,” he wrote in one of his letters, “what does the monarchy have in common with the individuals who wear the crown?” In addition, Tolstoy spoke with equal disgust about any tyranny: both about Robespierre and Saint-Just, and about Ivan the Terrible. He stated more than once that he hated any tendency in a work of art - “It’s not my fault (says the same letter) if from what I wrote for the love of art it is clear that despotism is no good. So much the worse for despotism! This will always be clear from any work of art, even from a Beethoven symphony.”

A few years later, in 1874, sending his autobiography to the Italian journalist A. Gubernatis, Tolstoy summed up his position in literature as follows: “... I can say, not without pleasure, that I am a scarecrow for our democratic socialists and at the same time I am the favorite of the people, whose patrons they consider themselves. What’s interesting, among other things, is the fact that while magazines brand me with the name of a retrograde, the authorities consider me a revolutionary.” He himself believed that he most fully expressed his “socio-political views” in the poem “The Bogatyr Stream” (1871). This satirical ballad tells about the knight of Kievan Rus, who fell asleep for 500 years, and woke up in the era of Ivan the Terrible and saw how:

The king rides on a horse, wearing a brocade coat,
And executioners are walking around with axes -
They are going to amuse His Grace:
There is someone to chop or hang.

They explain to him that it is “the earthly god who is traveling.” The stream is amazed: “We are strictly commanded by Scripture // To recognize only the heavenly god!” He falls asleep again and awakens another 300 years later - in the nineteenth century contemporary to the author. The flow gets to the court and sees a “patriot” who claims that:

“Only black people are called upon to rule Russia! According to the old system, everyone is equal, but according to ours, only he has full rights!”

The stream inevitably concludes that the Russian people only dream of a powerful master:

“After all, just yesterday, lying on their belly, they
They adored the Khan of Moscow,
And today they tell me to adore the man.
It seems to me that there is such a need to lie down
Now before this, now before this on the belly
Based on the spirit of yesterday!”

The last line is essential for understanding not only this ballad, but also the position of Alexei Tolstoy in general; “yesterday’s spirit” is the habit of slavery that formed in Rus' during the years of the Tatar-Mongol yoke.

In "The Bogatyr Stream" two despotisms are revealed: monarchical (Ivan the Terrible) and democratic ("muzhik") - one is worth the other. The publisher of the "Bulletin of Europe" M. M. Stasyulevich stood up for the nihilists denounced in the ballad - he believed that they were an insignificant phenomenon; Tolstoy objected with bitterness: “The denial of religion, family, state, property, art, ... is a plague” and this, from Tolstoy’s point of view, is no better than the “subservience to the Tsar in the Moscow period” depicted in “Stream” . At the end of the same letter, Tolstoy is perplexed: “... why am I free to attack all lies, all abuse, but am not free to touch nihilism, communism, materialism? And that because of this I will be extremely unpopular, that they will call me a retrograde - what do I care about that?..” Alexei Tolstoy repeatedly said that he was “between two fires”, that he accused the tsarist ministers “of revolutionary ideas, and newspaper lackeys - in retrograde ideas. Two extremes converge to condemn me. And I am innocence itself!..”

A. Tolstoy's views on politics are closely connected with his historical concept. It arose in polemics with the Slavophiles, which became increasingly harsh. Tolstoy maintained invariably friendly, mutually respectful relations with the brothers Ivan and Konstantin Aksakov and with Khomyakov - however, this did not prevent him from being irreconcilable in his views on the past and future of the country.

In the history of Rus', Tolstoy distinguished two periods: Kiev and Moscow. Kiev - pre-Mongol, when Russian people were free not only externally, but also internally; when they were characterized by honor, dignity, generosity, humility before God and aversion to servility. After three centuries of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the nation was reborn; slavish instincts prevailed - a complex of vices appeared, generated by a long lack of freedom: servility before those in power, selfishness, cruelty, treachery, indifference, and even contempt for one’s neighbor. Tolstoy never tired of condemning the Moscow of the tsars - everything connected with it aroused his rage: “I can’t tell you to what extent my sympathy for our normal period reaches, and my hatred for the Moscow period.” Hatred: This is the only way Tolstoy called the feeling he experienced towards Rus' of both Ivans, the third and fourth. He promises playwright Nikolai Chaev: “...I will come for ten days to Moscow, a city that I love as much as I hate its historical significance...” Further in the same letter - in more detail: “I am overcome by anger and rage when I I compare urban and princely Russia with Moscow, Novgorod and Kyiv morals with Moscow; and I don’t understand how Aksakov can look at the spoiled, Tatarized Moscow as a representative of Ancient Rus'? I can’t even stand Andrei Bogolyubsky, because he is the predecessor of John III.” Here is an attack on Ivan Aksakov - but at first the Slavophiles enthusiastically welcomed Alexei Tolstoy; It seemed to them that their regiment had arrived: “Your poems are so original, there is such a lack of any imitation in them and such strength and truth that if you had not signed them, we would have taken them for ancient folk,” they said to A. Tolstoy, having read his poems “Arrogance” and “Bell”, Alexey Khomyakov and Konstantin Aksakov in 1856. Tolstoy was flattered by their praise in his time. A decade and a half later, without denying his personal sympathy for them, he would write: “My good friend and deeply respected friend, Aksakov, must not suspect that the Rus' that he would like to resurrect has nothing in common with the real Russia. The coachman's clothing, which his brother, Konstantin Aksakov, and Khomyakov sported, depicts the real Russian Rus' just as little as their pre-Petrine theories; and Peter I, despite his stick, was more Russian than them, because he was closer to the pre-Tatar period.” This is A. Tolstoy’s attitude towards Slavophilism and its founders: they are unable to understand that “the Moscow period has tarnished us.”

Most radically, A. Tolstoy expresses his point of view on Russia and Russian history in a polemical letter of 1869 to Boleslav Markevich, dedicated to the problem of other nationalities: here Tolstoy, without hesitation, although with a touch of humor, but without any jokes, declares: “If in front of my At birth, the Lord God told me: “Count, choose the people among whom you want to be born!” - I would answer him: “Your Majesty, wherever you please, but not in Russia!” I have the courage to admit it. I am not proud that I am Russian, I submit to this position. And when I think about the beauty of our language, when I think about the beauty of our history before the damned Mongols and before the damned Moscow, even more shameful than the Mongols themselves, I want to throw myself on the ground and roll in despair at what we have done to the talents, given to us by God!

Alexey Tolstoy saw his goal, as well as the goal of all Russian literature in general, in the eradication of the Mongolian spirit - a combination of servility and cruelty. He spoke more than once about his duty as a citizen and artist. The best way to achieve this goal is rapprochement with Europe. “And where did they get the idea that we are the antipodes of Europe? A cloud ran over us, a Mongolian cloud, but it was just a cloud, and may the devil take it away as quickly as possible... It seems to me that I am more Russian than all kinds of Aksakovs and Hilferdings when I come to the conclusion that Russians are Europeans, and not Mongols." In another letter we read an equally optimistic statement: “The Moscow period made us Tatars, but it does not follow from this that we are Tatars; this is nothing more than a passing shameful disease of Our history.” This means that Russia needs to be rastatarized - through connections with Europe, to which it belongs. Here are a few more lines from the main theoretical work of A. Tolstoy, from his “Project for staging the tragedy “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich” on stage” (1868): “A strange fear of being Europeans! A strange search for the Russian nationality in similarities with the Turanians and Russian originality in the stigma of the Tatar yoke! The Slavic tribe belongs to the Indo-European family. Our Tatars are a superficial, accidental element, grafted onto us by force! There is no point in being proud of them and flaunting them! And there is no point in turning our backs on Europe, as some pseudo-Russians suggest. Such a position would only prove lack of education and historical meaning."

One of A. Tolstoy’s central arguments in favor of a turn to Europe is the principle of individuality developed by the history and culture of the West. Tolstoy considered the communal spirit rooted in Rus' to be harmful to national development: “... I do not despise the Slavs, on the contrary, I sympathize with them, but only insofar as they strive for freedom or independence... But I become their avowed enemy when they they are at war with Europeanism and oppose their damned community to the principle of individuality, the only principle under which civilization in general and art in particular can develop... I am a Westerner from head to toe, and true Slavism is also Western, not Eastern. He has no reason to be oriental.”

Any elevation of the East over the West causes an attack of idiosyncrasy in Tolstoy. He is uncomfortable with complacency and narcissism, expressed in the well-known formula, which he ironically quotes: “I am proud of the vastness of the Russian land and the breadth of Russian nature, which cannot and does not want to be embarrassed by anything. Any restriction is disgusting to Russian nature... Walk, soul! Get itchy, shoulder!..” But Tolstoy goes even further, he is not afraid to say: “Khomyakov’s Slavism makes me sick when he puts us above the West because of our Orthodoxy.”

It is interesting that Tolstoy shares all these thoughts with Boleslav Markevich, a friend of Katkov, a chauvinist, that is, a supporter of directly opposite ideas, with whom he, however, had a long-term friendship. Only once did things almost come to a break - when A. Tolstoy, speaking in Odessa at the English Club (March 14, 1869), made a most important, fundamental statement. He repeated that everyone should try “to the best of our ability to eradicate the remnants of the Mongol spirit that once struck us, no matter under what guise they are still hiding among us. “All of us,” continued Tolstoy, “have the responsibility, to the best of our ability, to erase the traces of this alien element, instilled in us forcibly, and to help our homeland return to its primitive, European channel, to the channel of law and legality, from which unfortunate historical events forced it to time". Tolstoy ended his speech with a toast “for the prosperity of the entire Russian land, for the entire Russian state, in its entirety, from edge to edge, and for all the subjects of the sovereign emperor, no matter what nationality they belong to.” It would seem that what in this speech could irritate Tolstoy’s opponents? They, however, exploded. The same B. Markevich, having read it in the Odessa Bulletin newspaper of March 18, wrote to Tolstoy: “The final phrase of your Odessa speech is a regrettable mistake...” - he believed that all foreigners should submit to Russification, which, for example, should prohibit Poles from speaking Polish in public places. N.F. Shcherbina, according to Markevich, said: “Different nationalities cannot be allowed in a powerful state!” And on his own behalf, Markevich reproached A. Tolstoy: “And you are proclaiming toasts to the prosperity of... nationalities! It remains to be assumed that you want the fate of Austria for your fatherland.” Tolstoy reacted angrily, arguing that “it is impossible to allow different states, but it is not up to you whether to allow or not to allow nationalities. Armenians subject to Russia will be Armenians, Tatars will be Tatars, Germans will be Germans, Poles will be Poles!..” Tolstoy refers to the erroneous policy of the British who suppressed the Irish nationality - they, in the end, understood the need for autonomy for Ireland: “... The numbers are here doesn't change anything. On the contrary, the smaller it is, the less excusable it is for you to resort to violence and trample under foot the laws of society.” All these thoughts of Tolstoy are relevant - especially since he refers to the example of the Estonians and Latvians. At the same time, A. Tolstoy composed “Song about Katkov, about Cherkassky. ..”, in which he outlined the essence of the dispute (it was on the list for a long time):

Friends, hurray for unity!
Bring Holy Rus' together!
Differences are like outrages
I'm afraid of the people...

It’s a pity that we don’t have Arabs, Prince Cherkassky, a supporter of Russification, would have smeared their faces with white paint, and at the same time:

With zeal, just as bold And with the help of water, Samarin would rub their black bottoms with chalk...

In his poetic work, A. Tolstoy consistently embodied the principles of Europeanization that he proclaimed in politics. A significant part of his poems are ballads, which continue the plot and strophic tradition of Schiller, picked up in Russia by Zhukovsky and Pushkin. The ballads fall mainly into two groups: the first, early, is dedicated to Moscow Rus', the era of Ivan the Terrible; the second, late, - the Norman era, pre-Mongol Rus'.

“Moscow Ballads” express Tolstoy’s view of the contamination of post-Tatar Rus' with the “Mongol spirit.” The ballad about Shibanov tells about the flight of Prince Kurbsky from the “royal wrath”, from Ivan the Terrible.

Ivan the Terrible is a monster, but Prince Kurbsky is not much better: he sent his savior and faithful assistant to his death. Vasily Shibanov is a devoted ally, but he is characterized by the servility characteristic of the Tatars: under torture he “glorifies his master,” and before his death this heroic slave utters seemingly unthinkable words:

“For the terrible, O God, king I pray,

For our holy, great Rus'..."

The undisputed hero is Prince Mikhailo Repnin, who during the royal feast challenges Ivan the Terrible:

Then Repnin, the truthful prince, stood up and raised his cup:

“Let the oprichnina perish!” - he said, crossing himself.

And he dies, pierced by the royal rod. Repnin knows the sense of honor, which Tolstoy highly valued and which he wrote about in his “Project,” referring to one of his favorite heroes, commander Ivan Petrovich Shuisky: “... in the Moscow period of our history, especially during the donation of Ivan the Terrible, a feeling this [honour], in the sense of protecting one’s own dignity, has suffered significantly or been distorted [...] But in the sense of a duty recognized by a person over himself and dooming him, in case of violation, to his own contempt, the sense of honor, thank God, we have survived [...] To what can we attribute the act of Prince Repnin, who died so as not to dance in front of the Tsar? [...] Connection with Byzantium and Tatar rule did not allow us to introduce the idea of honor into the system, as was done in the West, but the holiness of the word remained as obligatory for us as it was for the ancient Greeks and Romans.”

The second group of ballads, “Norman”, was written in the late 60s; these are “Song about Harald and Yaroslavna”, “Three Massacres”, “Song about Vladimir’s campaign against Korsun” (all three - 1869). A. Tolstoy talks with love, even admiration, about the events and customs of that period, which he called Norman-Russian. This group of ballads was essentially polemical in nature - they were all directed against the Slavophiles who idealized post-Tatar Rus'. A. Tolstoy wrote to the editor of “Bulletin of Europe” M. M. Stasyulevich, sending him the second of this series for the magazine: “My goal was to convey only the flavor of that era, and, most importantly, to declare our commonality at that time with the rest of Europe, in spite of the Moscow Russopians, who chose the most vile of our periods, the Moscow period, as the representative of the Russian spirit and the Russian element.

You will call it Russia!

This is what outrages me and what I stand against!”

The poetic quotation needs to be clarified: it was taken by A. Tolstoy from his ballad “The Serpent Tugarin” (1867?).. It tells about a feast at Prince Vladimir; an unknown singer performs, he predicts a terrible future for Rus' - the time will come when “honor, sirs, will replace the whip for you, // And in the veche - the Kagan’s will” (the Mongol yoke); then another time will come, when “the Russian people will rise,” but from their midst a sovereign ruler will emerge: .

And one of you alone will gather the land,
But he himself will become khan over her.
(Gatherer of the earth - John III, and then the Terrible)
But he continues, grinning his mouth:
“You will adopt our custom,
You will learn to lay a guarantee for your honor,
And so, having swallowed the Tatar to his heart’s content,
You will call it Russia!”

This is what the Tatar serpent Tugarin predicts for Rus': “You will adopt our custom.” And he continues:

“And you will quarrel with an honest old man,
And, to the great ancestors in the trash,
Without listening to the voice of my own blood,
You will say: “Let’s turn our backs to the Varangians,
Let’s turn our faces to the debauchery!”

To the waste - that is, to the East. This will be the “otatization” of Rus'. Prince Vladimir does not believe the ominous prophecy of the Serpent, he raises the cup and proclaims:

“I drink to the Varangians, to the dashing grandfathers,
Who raised Russian glory,
For whom our Kyiv is famous, for whom the Greek has calmed down,
For the blue sea that is theirs,
The noise came from the sunset!

Prince Vladimir’s toast is not destined to come true: Rus' will fall under the rule of the Tatars for a long time. Tolstoy invariably praised the Scandinavians, who brought European morals to Rus' and preserved the original Russian customs. Continuing his reasoning, he wrote to B. Markevich: “The Scandinavians did not establish, but found an already established veche. Their merit is that they preserved it, while the vile Moscow destroyed it - an eternal shame on Moscow! There was no need to destroy freedom in order to defeat the Tatars; there was no need to destroy a lesser despotism in order to replace it with a greater one. Collecting Russian land. Collecting is good, but the question is - what to collect? A piece of land is better than a pile of crap."

The dramatic trilogy, the main poetic work of Alexei Tolstoy, is dedicated to this Moscow period of Rus', which he hated so much. Among the characters there are several characters illuminated by the author's love and arousing your sympathy. Among them is the above-mentioned Ivan Shuisky, a knight of honor, “a proud and strong man”; Irina, Godunov’s sister and Fedor’s wife, in whom the author notes “a rare combination of intelligence, firmness and meek femininity”; Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich, who is characterized by “Christian humility”, “magnanimity”, which “has no limits”, but also weakness - “he does not always adhere to his calling to be a man, but sometimes tries to choose the role of a king, which is not indicated to him by nature.” These few heroes of A. Tolstoy differ from all others in that they remained faithful to national and religious traditions; they are, as it were, taken by the author beyond the boundaries of social connections. Most of the boyars and their servants are bearers of Tatarism: dishonest, embittered self-interested people, devoid of convictions, revering only strength and power, intimidated first by Ivan the Terrible, then by Tsar Boris, capable of any crime out of fear. The most long-suffering figure turns out to be the main character of the entire trilogy, Boris Godunov, the same one about whom in Pushkin’s tragedy one of the opponents says: “Yesterday’s slave, Tatar, Malyuta’s son-in-law, // The executioner’s son-in-law and himself an executioner at heart...” In Alexei Tolstoy Boris is a large-scale politician striving for lofty goals. He himself speaks about his intentions:

Ivan Vasilich the Terrible freed Rus' from the Tatar horde

And I set a new beginning for a strong state.

But in two hundred years the Tatar yoke cut us off from other Christians. I intend to connect the broken chain with the West again...

The Earth must remain close to the powers of Europe,

And in the future, with God’s help, get ahead of them.

These intentions fully correspond to the ideals of A. Tolstoy. Godunov’s son Fyodor speaks to the Danish prince Christian about his father, summarizing the essence of his state idea:

His concern is only for one land:
He wants to bring out the Tatars from us,

He wants to return us to our native course. Just think: we ourselves cannot boast about our breed; We trace our beginning to the Tatars.

Christian.
But you have been Russian for two hundred years.
There is little Tatar blood left in you.
Fedor.
Not a drop left!
And it would be unlikely to be found in Rus',
Who could hate the Tatars more?
Than my father and I.

In the name of this idea, Boris went to the murder of a child, Tsarevich Dimitri. In a conversation with his sister, the Dowager Queen Irina, who became a nun, he explains it this way:

In front of
Always seeing the greatness of Rus' alone,
I walked forward and was not afraid at all
Overturn obstacles. Before one
I stopped in doubt...
But the thought of the kingdom prevailed
Over my hesitation...

How to resolve this tragic conflict? Tolstoy does not offer a way out: if one existed, the conflict would not be tragic. In his “Project...” Tolstoy speaks of Godunov with great objectivity and at the same time with serious sympathy: “... Godunov’s inflexibility now appears in the strict form of state necessity. No matter how cruel his measures are, the viewer must see that they were instilled in him not only by ambition, but also by a more noble goal, the good of the whole earth, and if you do not forgive him for Demetrius’s sentence, then understand that Demetrius is really an obstacle to achieving this goal.” Tolstoy spoke more than once about sympathy for Godunov. From a moral point of view, the elimination of Tsarevich Dimitri cannot be justified, but the conspiracy of the Nagi against Tsar Fyodor “gives his crime the character of a state necessity,” he wrote in 1865, and almost four years later he admitted: “Tsar Boris not only visits me, but sits with me constantly and benevolently turns in all directions so that I can see him. Seeing him so close, I must admit, I fell in love with him.” Amazing confession! No less surprising are the repeated references to the “historical necessity” of the Uglich event.

Boris Godunov was for Tolstoy an outstanding statesman - the only one who wanted and could overcome the Tatars, end the shameful role of Moscow, turn Russia to face Europe - in other words, accomplish what Peter the Great did a century later, who “was more Russian than they (Slavophiles) because he was closer to the pre-Tatar period.” Godunov was not allowed to fulfill his historical mission: the entire trilogy is the story first of his rise, which he owes to his intelligence and talents, and then of his fall, which turned out to be a consequence of political intrigue and an extensive conspiracy of the boyars who sought to throw Russia back and tear it away from Europe. It is in this historiosophical concept that the difference between A. Tolstoy’s plan and Pushkin’s tragedy, in the center of which is the inevitability of retribution for a crime, that is, a moral problem. A. Tolstoy’s trilogy explores the reasons for the death of a statesman who, if his concept had prevailed over his contemporary Tatarism, would have led the country onto the European path of development, where it would have stood next to the great powers and could even “in the future, with them, with with the help of God, // Get ahead."

In his last drama, A. Tolstoy wanted to show his beloved pre-Tatar Rus' of the 13th century: a country of proud and freedom-loving people, capable of selfless feats, driven by valor and honor. There are also cowards and self-interested people here, but they are not the drivers of the plot. Natalya, the beloved of the Novgorod governor Andrei Chermny, steals the key to the underground passage from him - in the name of saving his brother, a spy from the enemy camp, the Novgorodians accuse the governor of treason, and then the old mayor Gleb takes the blame: he is ready to sacrifice his life, and most importantly , honor, in the name of saving the city - after all, only Voivode Chermny can defend Veliky Novgorod from the Suzdal people besieging it. The drama remained unfinished, Tolstoy's plan hung in the air - he could not cope with the play about ancient Novgorod, perhaps because it, unlike the trilogy based on history, was pure speculation. He wrote to his wife from Dresden: “I purchased health provisions for a whole year, having found a plot for a drama - human. A man, in order to save the city, takes on apparent meanness. But we need to put this into a frame, and Novgorod would be the best.” Even before that, he asked Karolina Pavlova to help him find “a human plot, but not an ethnographic one, so that the thing would happen God knows where and God knows when.” Obviously, nothing can be created on such an abstract basis: even the experienced playwright Alexei Tolstoy could not cope with such a task.

As in lyrical and ballad poetry, A. Tolstoy remained a Westerner in drama. He hated Racine and was not a fan of Shakespeare - he was rather skeptical about the latter: “Racine’s heroes pose, and Shakespeare’s heroes grimace,” he said back in 1858. Yet his tragedies, written in iambic pentameter, sometimes interrupted by prosaic folk scenes, are oriented specifically towards Shakespeare and, partly, towards Schiller (“Wallenstein”). Refuting the calls of Slavophiles for a national-Russian dramatic form, he insisted: “Rejecting [...] European technique in Russian dramatic art is the same as rejecting European perspective in Russian painting.” Tolstoy gave a rare example of the author’s analysis of his own work, analyzing the composition of his tragedy “Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich”: “If you imagine the whole tragedy in the shape of a triangle, then its basis will be the competition of two parties, and the apex will be the entire spiritual microcosm of Fyodor, with whom the events of the struggle are connected like lines , going from the base of the triangle to its apex or vice versa. From this it naturally follows that one side of the tragedy is designed more in the spirit of the Romanesque school, and the other more in the spirit of the German school.” Commenting on his own analysis, Tolstoy pointed out: “The peculiarity of the Romanesque school is the predominant finishing of intrigue, while the German school is engaged in analysis and character development.” His general conclusion was: “I apologize to the champions of Russian principles of art, but besides these two directions, I don’t know another, just as, in contrast to the often mentioned European drama, I don’t know either Asian or African drama.”

Tolstoy's ideas about the structure of drama were distinct and consistent. He attached great importance to the architecture of the work: “...I admire color, I look for it, I respect it, but color without line cannot be allowed: line is the main thing in all arts.”

However, his architectural idea covered more than one play - it extended to the entire trilogy. Repeatedly he compared the construction of his trilogy with the principle of construction of a Greek building (for example, the Colosseum); the lower row of columns is of the Doric order; the middle one is Ionic, the top one is Corinthian: “Of my three tragedies, “Tsar Boris” is the most magnificent in ornamentation, “Tsar Ivan” is the most restrained.”

Thus, the sources that A. Tolstoy, a poet and playwright, focuses on are: German ballads (Schiller, Uhland), German and French lyrics (Goethe, Heine, Chenier), Romanesque (Racine, Corneille) and Germanic (Shakespeare, Schiller ) drama, ancient (Greek) architecture. Responding to reproaches (I.S. Turgenev) for the sometimes sloppy rhymes, Tolstoy puts forward a convincing theory based on the opposition of two schools of Italian painting: “The approximation of rhyme within certain limits, which does not frighten me at all, can, in my opinion, be compared with bold strokes of the Venetian school, which by its very imprecision, or rather, negligence, achieves an effect that Carlo Dolci could never achieve, and in order not to mention the name of this vile swindler, it achieves effects that Raphael should not hope for, with all the purity of his drawing . I will never tire of repeating that I am not protecting myself, but the entire school.”

To these sources we can therefore add Italian painting. However, Italian stanzas also played a significant role in the work of A. Tolstoy: the satirical poem “Popov’s Dream” and the autobiographical poem “Portrait” are written in octaves, the poem “Dragon” is written in Dante’s terzas.

* * *
A. Tolstoy, one of the most Russian writers in Russia, who devoted his entire creative life to resolving painful issues of its history and its modernity, was highly critical of his homeland. He considered the stern severity of his gaze an integral property of patriotism. He, who wrote so many times about his love for the Russian landscape and the Russian language, considered himself entitled to declare: “... I do not belong to any country and at the same time I belong to all countries at the same time. My flesh is Russian, Slavic, but my soul is only human.”

L-ra: Star. – 1991. - No. 4. – P. 180-188.

Keywords: Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy, patriotism A.K. Tolstoy, criticism of the work of A.K. Tolstoy, analysis of the work of A.K. Tolstoy, download criticism, download analysis, download for free, Russian literature of the 19th century

Your Majesty, I thought for a long time about how I should explain to you a matter that deeply affects me, and I came to the conviction that the direct path here, as in all other circumstances, is the best. Sovereign, service, whatever it is, deeply disgusting to my nature; I know that everyone should benefit the fatherland to the best of their ability, but there are different ways to benefit. The path shown to me for this by Providence is mine. literary talent, and any other path is impossible for me. I will always be a bad military man and a bad official, but, it seems to me, without falling into conceit, I can say that I am a good writer. This is not a new calling for me; I would have given myself to him long ago if for a certain time (up to forty years) I had not forced myself out of a sense of duty, taking into account my relatives, who had different views on this. So, at first I was in the civil service, then, when the war broke out, I, like everyone else, became a military man. After the end of the war, I was ready to leave the service in order to devote myself entirely to literature, when Your Majesty was pleased to inform me through my uncle Perovsky about your intention for me to be with you. I expressed my doubts and hesitations to my uncle in the letter with which he introduced you, but since he once again confirmed to me the decision made by Your Majesty, I obeyed him and became Your Majesty’s aide-de-camp. I thought then that I would be able to conquer the artist’s nature within myself, but experience showed that I fought against it in vain. Service and art are incompatible, one thing harms the other, and a choice must be made. Of course, direct active participation in state affairs would deserve greater praise, but I do not have a vocation for this, while another vocation has been given to me. Your Majesty, my position confuses me: I wear a uniform, but I cannot perform the duties associated with it properly.

Your Majesty’s noble heart will forgive me if I beg you to finally resign me, not in order to move away from you, but to follow a clearly defined path and no longer be a bird flaunting other people’s feathers. As for you, sir, whom I will never cease to love and respect, I have a means to serve your person, and I am happy that I can offer you: this means - speak the truth at all costs, and this is the only position possible for me and, fortunately, does not require a uniform. I would not be worthy of it, sir, if in my present petition I resorted to any omissions or looked for imaginary pretexts.

I have completely opened my heart to you and will always be ready to open it to you, because I prefer to cause your displeasure than to lose your respect. If, however, Your Majesty were pleased to grant the right to approach Your Majesty’s person only to persons vested with an official title, allow me, as before the war, to modestly become a chamber cadet, for my only ambitious desire, sir, is to remain Your Majesty’s most loyal and devoted subjects.

AGAINST THE STREAM

1

Friends, do you hear a deafening cry:
“Surrender, singers and artists! By the way
Are your inventions in our positive age?
Are there many of you left, dreamers?

Surrender to the onslaught of new times,
The world has become sober, hobbies have passed -
Where can you, an outdated tribe, stand?
Against the stream?"

2

Others, don't believe it! Still the same one
An unknown force beckons us,
The same song of the nightingale captivates us,
The same heavenly stars make us happy!

The truth is still the same! In the midst of stormy darkness
Believe in the wonderful star of inspiration,
Row together, in the name of beauty,
Against the stream!

3

Remember: in the days of Byzantium, relaxed,
In fits of rage at God's abodes,
Boldly swearing at the plundered shrine,
The icon destroyers also shouted:

“Who will oppose our multitude?
We surrounded the world with the power of thinking -
Where can the vanquished argue with art?
Against the stream?"

4

In those days, after the execution of the Savior,
In the days when the apostles walked inspired,
They went to preach the word of the teacher,
The arrogant scribes spoke thus:

“The rebel is crucified! There is no use in being ridiculed,
To all the hated, insane doctrine!
Should they go to the poor Galileans?
Against the stream!"

5

Guys, row! In vain are the detractors
They think to insult us with their pride -
We will soon be ashore, winners of the waves,
Let us come out solemnly with our shrine!

The infinite will prevail over the finite
By faith in our sacred meaning,
We will stir up a counter current
Against the stream!

* * *

These poor villages.
This meager nature!

F. Tyutchev

Having bestowed very abundantly
Our land, king of heaven
Be rich and strong
Commanded her everywhere.

But so that villages fall,
So that the fields are empty -
We are blessed for that
The King of Heaven hardly gave!

We are careless, we are lazy,
Everything is falling out of our hands.
And besides, we are patient -
This is nothing to brag about!

February, 1869

I. A. GONCHAROV

Don't listen to the noise
Talk, gossip and troubles,
Think your own mind
And go ahead!

You don't care about others
Let the wind carry them barking!
What has matured in your soul -
Clothe it in a clear image!

Black clouds loomed -
Let them hang - the hell with it!
Live only in your thoughts,
The rest is bullshit!

On July 27, 1861, Tolstoy informed his wife from Peterhof that he wanted to write to Alexander II about his resignation to the Crimea, since “it is now impossible to talk.” Alexander II left for Crimea on August 6, 1861. The decree on Tolstoy’s dismissal was dated September 28. This determines the date of the letter.

Wed. with an excerpt that has come down to us from another undated letter to Alexander II, written later: “Your Majesty, there are two types of devotion to your monarch: one is to always be of the same opinion with him and to hide from him everything that could arouse displeasure in him, reducing in his mind the strength and significance of ideas that are in conflict with his system of government; such devotion, when it is not betrayal, could be called the devotion of a lackey or a short-sighted person. Another - the true kind - of devotion consists in showing the monarch all things in their true light, warning, when necessary, about the danger, such as it is, and - in accordance with the conscience and to the best of everyone's understanding - suggesting the best method in the given circumstances. actions. Such, sir, is my devotion to you. Without occupying any official position, without belonging to any party, I have the opportunity to hear all opinions, sum them up and draw conclusions from them that it would be essential for Your Majesty to know ... "

Alexey Konstantinovich Tolstoy

Against the Current (collection)

A.K. Tolstoy - Alexander II

August or September 1861

Gr. A. Tolstoy

AGAINST THE CURRENT1

Friends, do you hear a deafening cry:
“Surrender, singers and artists! By the way
Are your inventions in our positive age?
Are there many of you left, dreamers?

Surrender to the onslaught of new times,
The world has become sober, hobbies have passed -
Where can you, an outdated tribe, stand?
Against the stream?"

Others, don't believe it! Still the same one
An unknown force beckons us,
The same song of the nightingale captivates us,
The same heavenly stars make us happy!

The truth is still the same! In the midst of stormy darkness
Believe in the wonderful star of inspiration,
Row together, in the name of beauty,
Against the stream!

Remember: in the days of Byzantium, relaxed,
In fits of rage at God's abodes,
Boldly swearing at the plundered shrine,
The icon destroyers also shouted:

“Who will oppose our multitude?
We surrounded the world with the power of thinking -
Where can the vanquished argue with art?
Against the stream?"

In those days, after the execution of the Savior,
In the days when the apostles walked inspired,
They went to preach the word of the teacher,
The arrogant scribes spoke thus:

“The rebel is crucified! There is no use in being ridiculed,
To all the hated, insane doctrine!
Should they go to the poor Galileans?
Against the stream!"

Guys, row! In vain are the detractors
They think to insult us with their pride -
We will soon be ashore, winners of the waves,
Let us come out solemnly with our shrine!

The infinite will prevail over the finite
By faith in our sacred meaning,
We will stir up a counter current
Against the stream!

* * *

These poor villages.
This meager nature!

F. Tyutchev

Having bestowed very abundantly
Our land, king of heaven
Be rich and strong
Commanded her everywhere.

But so that villages fall,
So that the fields are empty -
We are blessed for that
The King of Heaven hardly gave!

We are careless, we are lazy,
Everything is falling out of our hands.
And besides, we are patient -
This is nothing to brag about!

February, 1869

I. A. GONCHAROV

Don't listen to the noise
Talk, gossip and troubles,
Think your own mind
And go ahead!

You don't care about others

End of introductory fragment.

Text provided by LitRes LLC.

You can safely pay for the book with a Visa, MasterCard, Maestro bank card, from a mobile phone account, from a payment terminal, in an MTS or Svyaznoy store, via PayPal, WebMoney, Yandex.Money, QIWI Wallet, bonus cards or another method convenient for you.

Notes

L. A. Perovsky.

Unfortunately, of the three great Tolstoys, only Alexei Konstantinovich is not studied at school and is studied little in universities. He was a man of great intelligence and great faith. He had no weak works. He wrote only about what he knew.

The writer's childhood

Born on August 24, or September fifth according to the new style, in 1817. In Petersburg. His father was Count Konstantin Petrovich Tolstoy, his mother, the beauty, Anna Alekseevna. His parents' marriage was short-lived; when the boy was not even a month old, they divorced. Anna Alekseevna went to her brother in Rog. It was there that Tolstoy spent the first eight years of his life. Instead of his father, he was raised by his uncle, Alexey Alekseevich Perovsky, a writer who published under the pseudonym Antony Pogorelsky. So Tolstoy had some writing genes.

The beginning of the creative path of Alexey Konstantinovich

The count began writing poetry at the age of six, but did not publish them for a long time, he considered them ridiculous. The first publication of the poems took place in 1854. They were published in Sovremennik, Nekrasov’s magazine. His literary debut took place in 1841. The story “The Ghoul” was published under a pseudonym. Even from this work it was clear that the author had chosen his own path and was not going to follow generally accepted literary canons blindly. In 1867, his first and last lifetime collection of poems was published.

Giving up your old life

Alexey Konstantinovich was of count origin, and this obliged him to live up to the family title. Of course, his passion for literature was not approved. Therefore, his writing activity was perceived as a kind of rebellion, although he was by no means a rebel. Tolstoy wrote “Against the Tide” as a response to his friends and family; those who wanted to see him only as a writer were considered bad form, although the fashion for art in the 19th century was in its prime.

Tolstoy wrote “Against the Current” when his name already had some weight in the literary field. This was in 1867. He struggled with himself for a long time and tried to combine service and writing, but realized that this was impossible, and chose what was closer to his heart. At the age of 50, he devoted himself completely to literature. Alexey Konstantinovich left the capital to live in the outback, on his estate, and took up creativity. He was condemned from all sides. A lot of gossip was born. Alexey Tolstoy was against the general trend, and this always outrages society. At any time, and even more so in the 19th century.

A brief analysis of Tolstoy's poem "Against the Current"

In this work, the poet and playwright gives the answer why he chose a creative path rather than a brilliant career. Moreover, he also calls on people like himself to defend their interests and not listen to the opinions of “high society.”

The author says that the ruthless modern society does not need creative people - dreamers. It's too pragmatic. “Where can you, a revived tribe, stand against the current?” - Tolstoy seems to speak for the judgmental and cold majority. But he immediately refutes this, saying that an unknown force beckons them to itself. Power probably means inspiration. After all, it is inspiration that helps you see the world more beautiful than everyone else. “Trust in the wonderful star of inspiration,” Tolstoy urges in the poem “Against the Current.” The analysis of this work also reveals the author’s conviction in his choice, in his rightness; he gives examples of the victory of creativity and believes that art and inspiration will prevail. And only creative work is guaranteed immortality.

Alexey Konstantinovich fought for “pure art.” In his poem “Against the Current,” Tolstoy is sincerely and convincingly angry at the injustice towards creative people. The author's position is clear and precise. He made his choice and wanted to support others in the same choice.

The writer developed a hostile attitude not only from society, but also from literary criticism. He felt trapped. And he appealed to his like-minded people.

The poem reveals Alexei Konstantinovich as a glorifier of beauty. He considers himself first and foremost a creator. And glorifies literature as creativity, this is the main theme of the poem. His idea is that you need to follow your calling and talent in spite of everything.

The meter in which the poem is written is dactyl. Epithets and metaphors are used abundantly, as well as personification - “the world has become sober.”

Tolstoy idealizes the tasks of art; for him they come from God. Creativity is a shrine: “Let us go out solemnly with our shrine!”

A.K. Tolstoy - Alexander II

August or September 1861

AGAINST THE STREAM

1

Friends, do you hear a deafening cry:
“Surrender, singers and artists! By the way
Are your inventions in our positive age?
Are there many of you left, dreamers?

Surrender to the onslaught of new times,
The world has become sober, hobbies have passed -
Where can you, an outdated tribe, stand?
Against the stream?"

2

Others, don't believe it! Still the same one
An unknown force beckons us,
The same song of the nightingale captivates us,
The same heavenly stars make us happy!

The truth is still the same! In the midst of stormy darkness
Believe in the wonderful star of inspiration,
Row together, in the name of beauty,
Against the stream!

3

Remember: in the days of Byzantium, relaxed,
In fits of rage at God's abodes,
Boldly swearing at the plundered shrine,
The icon destroyers also shouted:

“Who will oppose our multitude?
We surrounded the world with the power of thinking -
Where can the vanquished argue with art?
Against the stream?"

4

In those days, after the execution of the Savior,
In the days when the apostles walked inspired,
They went to preach the word of the teacher,
The arrogant scribes spoke thus:

“The rebel is crucified! There is no use in being ridiculed,
To all the hated, insane doctrine!
Should they go to the poor Galileans?
Against the stream!"

5

Guys, row! In vain are the detractors
They think to insult us with their pride -
We will soon be ashore, winners of the waves,
Let us come out solemnly with our shrine!

The infinite will prevail over the finite
By faith in our sacred meaning,
We will stir up a counter current
Against the stream!

* * *

These poor villages.
This meager nature!

F. Tyutchev

Having bestowed very abundantly
Our land, king of heaven
Be rich and strong
Commanded her everywhere.

But so that villages fall,
So that the fields are empty -
We are blessed for that
The King of Heaven hardly gave!

We are careless, we are lazy,
Everything is falling out of our hands.
And besides, we are patient -
This is nothing to brag about!

February, 1869

I. A. GONCHAROV

Don't listen to the noise
Talk, gossip and troubles,
Think your own mind
And go ahead!

You don't care about others
Let the wind carry them barking!
What has matured in your soul -
Clothe it in a clear image!

Black clouds loomed -
Let them hang - the hell with it!
Live only in your thoughts,
The rest is bullshit!

* * *

Darkness and fog obscure my path,
The night is falling deeper and deeper on the ground,
But I believe, I know: he lives somewhere,
The Tsar Maiden lives somewhere!

I didn’t wait, I didn’t guess, I galloped in the dark
To that country where there is no road,
I unbridled the horse and drove it at random
And he squeezed spears into his sides!

August 1870

* * *

In a deserted monastery near Cordoba
There is a picture. With a diligent hand
The artist depicted her as stern,
Like a holy martyr before an idol
Lies in chains and executioners from the living
They tear off the skin... The view of the picture
Full of cruel art
It compresses the chest and outrages the feeling.
But in days of melancholy, everything appears to me again,
She persistently intrudes into thought,
And the torment of the executed saint
Today I understand and understand:
The veils have been removed from my soul,
Its living tissue is naked,
And every touch of her life
There is evil pain and burning torment.

Autumn 1870

* * *

The door to the damp porch opened again,
In the midday rays there are traces of a recent cold
They are smoking. A warm wind blew in our faces
And wrinkles the blue puddles in the fields.

The fireplace is still crackling, the ebb of fire
Reminiscent of the past cramped world of winter,
But the lark is there, ringing over the winter fields,
Today he announced that a different life has come.

And words sound in the air, I don’t know whose,
About happiness, and love, and youth, and trust,
And the running streams loudly echo them,
Fluctuating reeds, yellowing feathers.

Let them be like they are on clay and sand
The melted snow, murmuring, is carried away by waters,
The longing of your soul will be carried away without a trace
The healing power of resurrected nature!

* * *

I heard about the feat of the Croton fighter,
How, when he hoisted a young calf onto his shoulders,
To increase the strength of strong muscles gradually,
Walked around the city wall, bent under it,
And he repeated his work every day until
That Taurus did not grow up to become a fat bull.

In the days of my youth, with fate in a brave dispute,
I, like Milo, shouldered grief,
Without noticing that the burden is heavy;
But every day it grew invisibly,
And my head has already turned gray under it,
It keeps growing without measure and limit!

May 1871

ON TRACTION

Through the glow of darkening skies
And a small pattern is drawn in front of me
The forest is barely dressed in spring leaves,
A slope descends into a swampy meadow.

And wilderness and silence. Only sleepy blackbirds
How reluctantly they finish their singing;
Steam rises from the meadow... of a twinkling star
A reflection appeared in the water at my feet;

The coolness blew, and last year's leaf
Rusted in the oaks... Suddenly a light whistle
I heard it; behind him, clearly and clearly,
The familiar wheeze sounded three times to the shooter,

And the woodcock held out - beyond the shot. Another
Flies from behind the forest, but in a long arc
He went around the edge and disappeared. Hearing and vision
Mine are tense, and in a moment,

Whistling, one more, in the last light of day,
A trembling line rushes towards me.
Holding my breath, bending under the aspen tree,
I waited for the right moment - forward half an arshin

I threw up - the fire flashed, thunder roared through the forest -
And the woodcock falls to the ground like a wheel.
Distant rumbles of a heavy blow,
Weakened, we froze. Embraced by calm,

The young forest slumbers again, and in a gray cloud
Gun smoke hangs in the still air.
Here it came from a distant swamp
Spring cranes' jubilant note -

And everything fell silent again - and in the depths of the branches
The nightingale clicked a pearl shot.
But why suddenly, painfully and strangely,
The past suddenly hit me
And in this twilight, and in this silence
Did it appear to me as a sad reproach?

Departed joys! Forgotten sorrows!
Why did you sound again in my soul
And again before me, in the middle of a lucid dream,
Has the lost spring flashed past my days?

May 1871

* * *

“...” In the very flow and rhythm of the poems, he breathes the joy of life; often with your inner vision you catch a cheerful, playful, and sometimes mocking smile on his face. Sometimes a passionate, excited and exciting feeling even overflows. I want to take a deep breath, I want to scream - I need interjections, sounds without concepts, one chorus:

Goy, you, my homeland!
Goy, you dense forest!
The midnight nightingale's whistle!
Wind, steppe and clouds!
“My heart sensed that life was good,” and therefore
The heart leaps wildly:
Oh, okay, lel-lyuli!

He, like Tolstoy, has an uncontrollable delight in the happiness of being, in the joy of breathing, and one of the most beautiful sounds of Russian poetry flows straight from his soul - this bright wave of early spring, this eternally fresh cry of the human heart, full of admiration and sadness:

That was on the morning of our years -
Oh happiness! oh tears!
O forest! oh life! oh sunshine!
O fresh spirit of birch!

He is generally a poet of spring; so to speak, undoubted, obvious, liked by everyone, it, adapted to universal human taste, is also his favorite time of year, “turns green in his heart.”