November 20th 1910 – the date of leo Tolstoy’s death. a whole century
has passed since then. a century without Tolstoy… Sounds sad and
lonely. Chekhov used to say: “…When there is such figure in literature
as Tolstoy, it is much easier and even enjoyable to be a writer. Even after
realising that you personally haven’t done and will never do anything
grand, it is still easier – leo Tolstoy will do it for you”. Without Tolstoy
it’s not as easy and enjoyable anymore, and not only in literature. no
more focal point, nothing to lean on.
We all know that Tolstoy’s death shocked his contemporaries. But
his departure from Yasnaja Polyana (Clear glade Estate) probably ca-
used even greater shock. It looked like a renouncement. It was as if the
king deserted his kingdom, abolished his throne.
Interestingly enough, hardly anyone among Tolstoy’s contempora-
ries questioned his magnitude as a writer; it was accepted as an abso-
lute fact. Whoever disagreed and argued with him seemed to be more
frustrated and angry with that particular way Tolstoy always spoke, he
spoke with a firm confidence of a ruler. Even though that caused a lot of
frustration, his right of doing so was never challenged. The frustration
had a different ground: it’s not what you say – it’s how you say it.
nobody doubted Tolstoy’s artistic gift, his scope of genius; further
on, however, people were lost in contradictions. Tolstoy – a great art-
ist, but a poor philosopher. Tolstoy is a genius but not a clever one, as
Vassilij rosanov once said. Tolstoy – a big writer, but he doesn’t under-
stand, doesn’t feel history. Tolstoy is a unique creator, but weak as a
moralist, as a religious thinker or a social schemer.
Tolstoy himself seem to have intensified these contradictions: a no-
bleman preaching simple living; a writer advocating to learn writing
from peasant children; family man acting against family; a Christian
rebelling against the Church or pagan practicing Christianity; an art-
ist confronting music, arts, literature (and not just some decadents, but
Shakespeare himself) and science; non-resistance acting against the state.
Everyone took that special something from Tolstoy that was per-
fect for them. Everyone created their own myths about him. Some pro-
claimed his achievement in realism and “ripping off social masks”;
others – glorified his literary genius as such. for some people he was
the embodiment of pagan world-view, for example Merezhkovskyj
called him “flesh psychic” but then again Merezhkovskij himself was
a materialist who didn’t personify god. But for others it was a social
component of Tolstoy that played the most important role – his stri-
ving for a simple life of a common person; in fact, thanks to Tolstoy
the entire populist direction glorifying moral fabric of peasant com-
munities emerged and strengthened. a lot of people saw Tolstoy as a
true Christian and were dignified by the Church’s act of his excom-
munication. although we can’t help but wonder why, as Tolstoy him-
self proclaimed that he didn’t accept orthodox dogma and was creating
his own.
It seems Tolstoy’s genius has always been surrounded by don’ts and
but’s, as if in attempt to challenge, to handicap his monolithic figure.
Meanwhile the main goal was not to fight him but to appropriate him.
not many would be able to talk to him as equals.  Konstantine leontiev
was one of the few who argued over Tolstoy’s artistic gift offering Mar-
kevitch as an argument… Does anyone nowadays remember Marke-
vich’s books? But nonetheless leontiev felt congenial to Tolstoy.
There is no single myth about Tolstoy – there is mythology. He
represents the entire system of myths. His healthy psyche was opposed
to Dostoevsky’s “madness” and “abnormality” (Mihajlovskij) creating
the idea that early Tolstoy is not the same as Tolstoy later in life, that
Tolstoy turned out to be opposing himself. one thing is Tolstoy who
wrote “War and Peace” but Tolstoy who is a religious preacher, is a
whole different matter. However going through Tolstoy’s diaries we
can see that he realized his missionary role rather early in life.
There were doubts about Tolstoy’s sincerity, questions about his
genuine impulsiveness and true reasons behind his actions which we-
re mistaken for a demonstration, a deliberate show.  His constant and
scrupulous self-picking, analysis of each and every action in the light
of the rightfulness made people wonder. all those rules that he cre-
ated, all those frames that he tried to fit in brought nothing but smirk.
His fear of death and his fight against it seemed strange and misun-
derstood. His last “gesture” (as characterized by andre Belyj) – the
departure from Yasnaja Polyana put everyone in shock. Meanwhile
by that time Tolstoy had stopped thinking about preaching and was
focused on silence. His departure, his silence and withdrawal from the
surrounding world – it’s not an attempt to escape the responsibility;
it’s a different form of it.
a hundred years later our generation is still trying to understand
and contribute to Tolstoy’s mythology. Pavel Basinsky marked this
memorable date with a release of colossal and detailed book under a
catchy but rather odd title “Escape from Paradise”.
It’s a book live-journal; attempt to make Tolstoy more familiar to
us at this day and age. The book is full of details, facts and quotes – and
this fact alone makes it valuable. Basinsky offered to look at Tolstoy the
way we would look at a common person. Here we see an old guy, with
personal issues, tired from “gloria Mundi”. Here he is trying to escape.
Here is the reaction of the press. Here are the difficulties that waited
for him on his road. Why can’t we just look at simple, human motives?
This is definitely some sort of attempt to simplify Tolstoy. While
gorki saw him as “pagan god” who is nonetheless slightly crafty and
cunning of course – just like he saw everyone, just like he saw Lenin,
Basinsky took god and turned him into a tired old guy. This is also a
myth in a sense; or rather an anti-myth.
It’s interesting to point out that thanks to experts from “Big Book”
award – Basinsky found himself next to Pelevin and his novel “T”,
which was also inspired by Tolstoy and his departure from Yasnaja
Polyana. although Pelevin’s Tolstoy is different – he is more of a token,
a symbol of Tolstoy, a live version of Tolstoy from repin’s painting
whose journey to optin Monastery is a road to Shambhala, the land
of happiness and tranquility. Pelevin is openly phantasmagorical. He
offers his reader to participate in a strange yet fascinating game with
figurative Tolstoy (T). But who is more mythological among the two –
fictional Pelevin or factual Basinsky – I wouldn’t dare to judge.
a hundred years have passed. full collection of Tolstoy’s work cou-
nts up to hundred volumes – plenty of work for another century.

Children on Tolstoy:
Helena Petrovna Konyayeva, a teacher of russian language and lite-
rature  in gymnasium n 12 of the city of Belgorod, gave her students an
interesting classwork: she asked each of them to answer the question
“What do I think of Tolstoy?”. “Izvestia” published excerpts from these
works. Spelling and punctuation are preserved.

Anonymous. 7th grade.
– I think that Tolstoy died miserably. I think he left his home in order to
escape his faith and was punished by god for it. Everybody knows that
pneumonia is curable; it was curable even in those days.

Karina, 7th grade
– I like his book Mumu, Kidnapping – Caucasian Style, War and Peace,
Sebastopol sketches.

Ayan, 9th grade
– His story “The lion and the Pup” is very touching and sad. He pro-
bably visualized himself in the role of that same lion – kind, tender,
loving but at the same time aggressive, mean and vicious.

Sonya, 7th grade
– I have some of his books at home, but nobody reads them.

Arina, 8th grade
– Tolstoy lived in his big estate “Zelenaja Polyana” (“green glade”),
and died there too.