THE RIGHTEOUS MAN: A. STUDY OF POSITIVE ’
HEROES IN THE WORKS OF N. S; LES-KOY ‘

Thesis for the Degree of Ph». D; _'
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
DONALD JAY ‘DRAGT
1975

H mem”, “3".mf”

--:9.‘ ;,
F, i I‘
I! H f-o‘ HI: ? "
L y \X 1 L ‘ ‘

9'”-
;1 0"

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
THE RIGHTEOUS MAN: A STUDY OF POSITIVE HEROES
IN THE WORKS OF N. s. LESKOV‘

presented by

 

Donald Jay Dragt

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph,D. degree in MR ° n

Major professor

07639

 

The q

a task khi

the author
treated by
On Leskov'
substantiv.

In rec
toward indi
heroes, UN
on the deVE
heroes, enc
life (1860-

This 5
Segments, C

hero in ea;

 

its Del-10d;

 
    

recogniZE-s

adding as «

C

    

Strongly 1.

In literat

ABSTRACT
THE RIGHTEOUS MAN: A STUDY

OF POSITIVE HEROES IN THE
WORKS OF N. S. LESKOV

BY
Donald Jay Dragt

The quest for and depiction of a positive ideal was
a task which commanded most of Nikolaj Leskov's attention
throughout his literary career. Despite its importance to
the author, this subject has not yet been sufficiently
treated by Leskov scholars. For years attention was focused
on Leskov's language and narrative technique, while avoiding
substantive discussion of his heroes.

In recent years more attention has been directed
toward individual members of Leskov's family of positive
heroes, thus preparing the soil for the present discussion
on the deve10pment and metamorphosis of his positive
heroes, encompassing the full extent of Leskov's literary
life (1860-1895).

This study divides Leskov's literary career into three
segments, consistent with the changing functions of the
hero in each stage. Traditional Leskov scholarship, basing
its periodization on the political position he projected,
recognizes only two literary periods (1860-1875, 1875-1895),
adding as a subclass the period 1887-1895, when Leskov was
strongly influenced by Tolstoj. Leskov's preparatory period

in literature (1860-1875) is here regarded as a time when

 

u‘qev.h} ft -

O i ‘J.

 

 

his positii
toward a be
issues deer
period, frc
hero, new a

continues 1

’"H
E:
(7
r+
H-
O
,3
’1':
h\

function is
personify e
society by
It Was
successful
lien, These
teachings,
Sermon on ti
fcmulated (
Character-1:6

period: the

KlghteOUs )4.

principle l;

 

 

Donald Jay Dragt

his positive heroes directed their efforts predominantly
toward a betterment of society by a criticism of specific
issues deemed harmful by Leskov himself. During the second
period, from about 1875 to the late 1880's, the positive
hero, now a fully developed Leskovian Righteous Man,
continues to seek the betterment of society, but now
functions as a descriptive ideal, a model after which
society can pattern its behavior. Then, during the final
phase, which corresponds with Tolstoj's influence, the hero's
function is not merely to exemplify goodness, but is to
personify one specific aspect of goodness in order to better
society by actually teaching righteousness.

It was found that the central period is Leskov's most
successful in terms of a balanced portrayal of Righteous
Men. These heroes embody and are motivated by Gospel
teachings, the essence of which Leskov finds in Christ's
Sermon on the Mount. The Righteous Man was conceived and
formulated during Leskov's first literary period, best
characterized as a period of search. During Leskov's final
period, the delicate balance he had achieved in his
Righteous Men is sacrificed to tendentiousness; the moral
principle he represents stands as the stripped hero's sole
identifying feature.

Despite the diversity of the positive heroes of the
three literary periods, this study traces that organic

relationship which has led scholars to use the term

o
.372"? .
‘m‘wv micro-LI vain-uh

"RighteC‘JS
. ° A "
r6110». 1
frequentl}

period are

physical a
inl' '

.....1C3t1f1;
to effect
audience,
universan.
$338ng er

attribute

s
DESpit

Career wit*

Luange’ his

"L

heroes Of <

lUrgenev’ I!

 

Donald Jay Dragt

"Righteous Man" loosely to describe positive heroes in each
period. Thus, four stories containing positive heroes
frequently designated as "Righteous Men" in Leskov's first
period are compared to eight stories containing Righteous
Men so named by Leskov himself, and finally, all are compared
to nine stories containing morally didactic variants of the
Righteous Men from Leskov's final period. These heroes are
compared in outlook, relationship to others, personal goals,
physical and moral composition, etc., with the results
indicating a continual progression from a hero whose efforts
to effect change are initially directed to a very limited
audience, to a hero whose message of Christian service is
universally comprehensible. They further show the author's
changing emphasis from a predominance of heroes who stand
out through exotic physical features to heroes whose moral
attributes set them apart.

Despite Leskov's disillusionment toward the end of his
career with the efficacies of his heroes as agents of social
change, his ideals occupy a distinct position among the
"heroes of our time" of Artsybasev, Eernysevskij, Pisemskij,

Turgenev, Dostoevskij, and Tolstoj.

THE RIGHTEOUS MAN: A STUDY
OF POSITIVE HEROES IN THE
WORKS OF N. S. LESKOV

By
Donald Jay Dragt

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of German and Russian

1975

 

Dedicated to

 

 

Dedicated to the memory of my father

ii

The writer k
to Dr. Denis Mick

throughout the p r:

 

Additionally , the

Munir Sendich, Dr .

 

E; and Dr. William “L.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer would like to express his deep gratitude

to Dr. Denis Mickiewicz for his advice and consultation

tflrroughout the preparation of this dissertation.
Additionally, the suggestions and encouragement of Dr.

Munir Sendich, Dr. Alexander Dynnik, Dr. Frank Ingram,

and Dr. William Hughes are greatly appreciated.

iii

 

TA

INTRODUCTION . . .

Chapter

 

I.The Precursors

lI. Leskov's Rigl‘

 

111. The Righteor;

CCNCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY ,

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o O 1
Chapter

I. The Precursors of Leskov's Righteous Man . . 15

II. Leskov's Righteous Man . . . . . .

O O O O O 71
III. The Righteous Man in a Tolstovka . . . . . 113

 

CONCLUSION o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 188 _
BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 202

iv

 

A common 1
need to scrutir
him. This iS s
study leaves 3
encoded form--i
literary work 0
derived from ex
overheard conve
influences durii
literary figure:

leave no doubt a

1 .
Laced. Russ iar.

encouraged just
Throughout the r

attitudes

 

 

INTRODUCTION

A common trait among members of the human race is the
need to scrutinize one's fellow man in order to categorize
him. This is especially challenging when the object of
study leaves a record of his thoughts and attitudes in
encoded form--in a painting, a musical composition or a
literary work of art. In such cases help is frequently
derived from extra-artistic considerations--letters,
overheard conversations, circles of friends, early
influences during the years of development, etc. .Some
literary figures, donning the garb of preacher or teacher
leave no doubt about the category into which they will be
placed. Russian literature from Belinskij onward actually
encouraged just such a pose on the part of its writers.
Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century literary
attitudes were moulded and shaped by a series of influential
radical critics demanding a literature with social utility.
Political direction took priority over literary considerations.
In one instance the critic Nikolaj Cernysevskij even drew up
a model of a positive hero for those unable to conceive him
on their own. For a beginning writer of this time to provoke
Opposition from such critics, even should that opposition

emanate from a prison cell, was tantamount to literary suicide.

 

s
l
W?
\oi

 

Even failure to SUP

 

presumed to imply o
ariter's inability
Ccnsider even the c
who was judged to l;
carricature of the

ELI} The emotic
raised over this n';
ahoneland forever.

Nikolaj Senenc
literary career dur
the fate of being 1
beginning. This c:
iiposed by Dmitrij
tainted critical a
UP to the present
Leskov schola

concern with the m

Statement .

 

 

 

 

2
Even failure to support the radical cause actively was
presumed to imply Opposition to that cause and assured a
writer's inability to derive a livelihood from literature.
Consider even the case of the established writer Turgenev
who was judged to have written himself out because of his

carricature of the nihilists in Otcy i deti (Fathers and

 

 

§g§§).1 The emotional strain resulting from the furor
raised over this novel caused Turgenev to give up Russia as
a homeland forever.2
Nikolaj Semenovié Leskov (1831-1895) launched his
literary career during these tempestuous times and suffered
the fate of being labeled a reactionary from almost the very
beginning. This categorization and the subsequent sentence
imposed by Dmitrij Pisarev were so effective that they have
tainted critical appraisal of Leskov's work as a whole right
up to the present day.3
Leskov scholarship in recent years indicates a genuine
concern with the misunderstanding brought about by Pisarev's

statement. One effort to counteract this tendency "by exposing

the shortcomings and fallacies in the critical evaluation of

1See the stinging critical appraisal of Turgenev's novel
by M. A. AntonoviE, "Asmodej nasego vremeni," Sovremennik,
No. 3 (1862), reprinted in M. A. AntonoviE, Literaturno-
kritideskie stat'i (Moscow, 1961), pp. 35-93.

 

 

 

2Avrahm Yarmolinskij, Turgenev (New York, 1961), p. 222.

3Dmitrij Pisarev (1840-1868) was the critic for the
radical journal Russkoe slovo. The radical cause was divided
over its interpretation offiTurgenev's Otcy i deti; Antonovic's
Sovremennik group rejected it while Pisarest more fanatical
group accepted it and welcomed the term "nihilist."

 

 

 

hir. [Leskov]. . .4 was
study was one of a r.
the h'est at the rate
first was a study er.
Scboriane and his S:
Thozas man sought 1

“d trace the roots

 

iE'D a study of Les}
Stephen Lottridge a'

aserious analysis 1

 

an?!"
11;: '

ricticn was made bv

.ISSEIIEIICHS has I:

.ozpieted already i
r.
.itellectual Develo

Iil lian Edg gerton rrc

its i..fluence on hi

4v
‘ ~ale
5:51:01? L ntina Ba»

:lterary Cri
u i‘.’ 'eI-S' lty

 

3
him [Leskov]...4 was made by Valentina Barsom in 1969. This
study was one of a number of dissertations which appeared in
the West at the rate of one per year from 1968 to 1971. The
first was a study entitled "Structural Features of Leskov's

n5

Soborjane and his Stories of the 1860's. In this work

 

Thomas Aman sought to define Leskov's early literary manner
and trace the roots of his technique in its mature form. In
1970 a study of Leskov's Prolog Tales appeared, written by
Stephen Lottridge at Columbia University.6 Finally, in 1971

a serious analysis of the folklore elements in Leskov's
fiction was made by James Russell.7 This series of four
dissertations was preceded in the United States by two others
completed already in the mid-fifties. In "Nikolai Leskov: The
Intellectual Development of a Literary Nonconformist"

William Edgerton meticulously details Leskov's biography and

8

its influence on his thought. Hugh McLean's "Studies

4Valentina Barsom, "The Misunderstood and Misinterpreted
Leskov: Leskov in Pre-Revolutionary Radical and Soviet
Literary Criticism," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pittsburgh, 1969).

5Thomas Aman, "Structural Features of Leskov's
Soborjane and his Stories of the 1860's," (Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Toronto, 1968).

 

6Stephen Lottridge, "Nikolaj Semenovig Leskov's Prolo
Tales,” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia Univer51ty,
1970).

7James Russell, "Leskov and Folklore," (Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Princeton University, 1971).

8William Edgerton, "Nikolai Leskov: The Intellectual
Deve10pment of a Literary Nonconformist," (Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, 1954).

 

 

'A

in the Lite 3..
influences as

Despite their 1
dissertations c

studv in the UT.

effect of a rear
Union, brought :
works and legiti
earlier by Maksi
Leskov credits C
for the contempo
There were

to the revolut i or

W Kr:

\

Ml publishec

 

4
in the Life and Art of Leskov" deals with later biographical
influences as well as analyzing Leskov's ska; technique.9
Despite their high levels of scholarship, these two
dissertations do not seem to have sparked further Leskov
study in the United States. The studies we mentioned from
the late 1960's and 1970's reflect rather the snowballing
effect of a reawakened interest in Leskov in the Soviet
Union, brought about by the popular appeal of Leskov's
works and legitimized by the deep interest in Leskov shown

10 Boris Drugov in his book on

earlier by Maksim Gor'kij.
Leskov credits Gor'kij as being the one person responsible
for the contemporary scholarly interest in Leskov.11

There were two books published in Russia on Leskov prior
to the revolution. The first was A. L. Volynskij's [Flekser]
N. S. Leskov: Kritigeskij ogerk (N. S. Leskov: A Critical

Sketch) published in 1898.12 The second was A. I. Faresov's

13

book entitled Protiv tegenij (Against the Currents). In

 

 

9Hugh McLean, "Studies in the Art and Life of Leskov,"
(Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1956).

10See Maksim Gor'kij, Sobranie socinenij (Moscow, 1953),
XXIV, 228-37.

 

1.lBoris Drugov, N. S. Leskov: Ogerk tvorzestva, 2nd ed.
(Moscow, 1961), p. 4.

 

12A. L. Volynskij [Akim Flekser], N. S. Leskov: Kriticeskij
ocerk (Petersburg, 1898); reprinted as Carstvo'Karamazovyx:
N. S. Leskov. Zametki (Petersburg, 1901); reprinted again as
N. S. Leskov (Petrograd, 1923).

 

 

13A. I. Faresov, Protiv tegenij: N. S. Leskov. Ego gizn',
socinenija, polemika i vospominanija o nem (Petersburg, 1904).

 

 

 

 

1902 a rather e
Sementkovskij r
in the Marks 3c
Although there
by the Formalis
were forthcomin
anniversary of
The most useful
Grossman called
IM: 1
Gebel's m
In his Creative
0f Leskov's Work
by F. Evnin was
oi-erview of Lesk
T° 53)’ that
1904 and 1945 do

BiographiCal art
‘J

rapisj am i pamj a

5
1902 a rather extensive introductory article by R.

Sementkovskij entitled N. S. Leskov (N. S. Leskov) appeared

 

 

in the Marks 36 volume edition of Leskov's "Complete Works."14
Although there was an interest expressed in Leskov's style

by the Formalists in the 1920's, no further books on Leskov
were forthcoming in the Soviet Union until 1945, the fiftieth
anniversary of his death. At that time three were published.
The most useful of them is a full-length study by Leonid

v
Grossman called N. S. Leskov: Zizn'. Tvorgestvo. PoEtika

 

(N. S. Leskov: His Life. Works. Poetics).15 Valentina

 

Gebel's N. S. Leskov: V tvorceskoj laboratorii (N. S. Leskov:

 

 

In his Creative Laboratory) examines primarily the composition

16

of Leskov's works. Finally, a 31 page pamphlet written

by F. Evnin was published, providing little more than an

overview of Leskov's life and works.17
To say that no books on Leskov were published between

1904 and 1945 does not mean to imply that none were written.

V
Biographical articles from Leskov's son Andrej's book Zizn'

Nikolaja Leskova: Po ego lignym, semejnym i nesemejnym

 

zapisjam i pamjatjam (The Life of Nikolaj Leskov: According

 

1'4R. . Sementkovskij, "Nikolaj Semenovic Leskov:
Kritiko- -biografi Eeskij ocerk, " in: N. S. Leskov, Polnoe
sobranie so inenij (Petersburg, 1902),I , 5- 66.

 

15Leonid Grossman, N. S. Leskov: Zizn'. tvorgestvo.
Poetika (Moscow, 1945).

 

16Valentina Gebel', N. S. Leskov: V tvorEeskoj
laboratorii (Moscow, 1945).

 

17F. I. Evnin, N. S. Leskov (Moscow, 1945).

 

 

 

 

to Personal. F?-
most important
already in the
its entirety ur
Boris Drug
many of his art
1930's on, was
full ten years
coincided with
edition of Lesk
0f Leskov's sto:
in the same coll
taken from throi
information Spur

Soviet scholars

then, notably 1:.

 

6
to Personal, Family and Non-Family Notes and Memoirs), the
most important source of biographical data extant, appeared

18 although it was never published in

already in the 30's,
its entirety until 1954.19

Boris Drugov's book mentioned above, a synthesis of
many of his articles on Leskov which had appeared from the
1930's on, was published for the first time only in 1957, a
full ten years after the author's death. Its appearance

coincided with the publication of the first serious Soviet

. . . v. ..
ed1t1on of Leskov's works, the eleven volume Sobran1e soc1nen13

 

(Collected Works).20 For the first time ever a large quantity
of Leskov's stories together with annotations were published
in the same collection with a selection of his correspondance
taken from throughout his lifetime. The availability of this
information spurred on the efforts of literally dozens of
Soviet scholars in the 1960's and 70's. While for some of
them, notably F. Krasnov, the mechanics of Leskov's style
remained the prime subject of consideration, others such as

Sal'nikova, Troickij and Mixajlova broadened the scope of

18See Literaturnyj sovremennik, No. 3 (1973), pp. 156-93.

 

‘ v

19Andrej Leskov, Zizn' Nikolaja Leskova: Po ego licnym,
semejnym i nesemejnym zapisjam i pamjatjam (Moscow, 1954).
It is quite possible that this book too might have been
released in 1945 for the 50 year anniversary of Leskov's death
had it not been for the fact that Andrej Leskov's only two
copies of his manuscript were lost during the blockade of
Leni grad. He was forced to reconstruct the bulk of his work.
See gizn' Nikolaja Leskova, pp. 679-80.

 

 

20N. S. Leskov, Sobranie soginenij, 11 vols. (Moscow,
1956-1958). Hereafter cited as Sobranie.

 

 

  

I: - ‘ .. ' .. I
J‘swr. 7 qu’fm-NW

   

stylistic diSCU
critical topicS
subject matter
Plescgunov and E
Leskov without
existence of th
of how Leskov's

by Amfiteatrov

two Leskovs , on

dates?1

The effort
evaluate Leskov
R .
narsom In her 31

h. 2
fine. 2 Attent;

asymmetrical Les
one aspect, his
For years the la
than the hero hi

SinCe LeSkC

 

7

stylistic discussions to include literary-historical and
critical topics. Such topics serve more exclusively as
subject matter for Pleggunov, Gorjagkina and Stoljarova.
Plesgunov and Stoljarova have even concentrated on the early
Leskov without offering the traditional apology for the
existence of that ”reactionary" period. The extreme example
of how Leskov's early period had been treated was provided
by Amfiteatrov who essentially suggested the existence of
two Leskovs, one writing until 1880 and the other after that
date.21

The effort on the part of the Soviet scholars to
evaluate Leskov's attitudes perhaps deserves more credit than
Barsom in her analysis of their contributions is willing to

22 Attention is now being focused away from an

give.
asymmetrical Leskov, i.e., away from a description of only
one aspect, his technique, to a more balanced presentation.
For years the language of Leskov's heroes has loomed larger
than the hero himself. Now that situation is being rectified.
Since Leskov's primary emphasis throughout his literary
career was on a search for and depiction of positive heroes,
my purpose in this study is to examine those heroes from a
non-linguistic standpoint. So intense was Leskov's quest for

an ideal, that he devoted an entire cycle of stories to it.

These stories focus upon the so-called Leskovian Righteous

21A. V. Amfiteatrov, "N. S. Leskov," Sobranie soEinenii
(Petersburg, 1912), XX, 327-44..

22See Barsom, pp. 190-93.

 

Man, a term freqL
positive heroes .
narrow sense as I
Righteous Man was
therefore, provic
of the ideal in 1
relating an inci;
the purpose for i
the deathbed of ]
I35 dying for tIlr
between the two 1
depicted in lite
to be nothing go

“H a 32'?

Huqepo Kpore

q-ro Korma”,

“HCaTenea' ‘

PpYCTHo’ 31

‘HBeT

8
Man, a term frequently employed to describe all of Leskov's
positive heroes, but one which should be used in a more
narrow sense as Leskov had intended. The Leskovian
Righteous Man was expressly formulated as an ideal and,
therefore, provides a unique insight into Leskov's concept
of the ideal in the 1880's. He introduced the cycle by
relating an incident which serves as the source of and
the purpose for the entire cycle. He had been called to
the deathbed of his friend Pisemskij, a hypochondriac who
was dying for the 48th time. A spirited debate erupted
between the two men concerning the type of heroes to be
depicted in literature. Pisemskij noted that there seemed
to be nothing good left to describe. Leskov took issue:
Kax,-nyman 3,-Heymro B caMOM nene an a moen,

an E ero u an e qben nHon pyccxon nyme ne Bnnarb

nnqero xpome npann? Heymro Bce noopoe u xopomee,

qro Korna-nnoo aamernn xynomecreennan rnaa npyrnx

nncarenen, --onHa BunyMKa n Banop? Bro He TOflbKO

rpycrno, sro crpamno. Ecnn oea rpex npaBennux, no

Haponnomy Bepoaaanm, He cronr an onnn ropon, TO

Kan me YCTOHTb uenon eemne c onnow npanbm,_noropaa

mnBer B moen n B TBoen nyme, Mon unrarenb?2
Leskov set off promptly in search of the three righteous
men. The cycle consists of the notes he made during his
search. Here then we have a series of ready made ideals
who owe their existence to the fact that they are exemplary.

These heroes comprise the Leskovian Righteous Man.

The term "pravednik" or "righteous man” is frequently

 

23N. S. Leskov, Polnoe sobranie sozinenij_N. S.
Leskova (Petersburg, 1902), III, 74-75. Hereafter cited

as Polnoe.

 

used rather loose}
The British liter;
alludes to the in;

Martin The Novel i

 

within Leskov's “C
"Leskov and the Ri
no more than a CU:
(The Cathedral FCC
an important work:
being fashioned, \
when Leskov actua

R- I- Sement

the differenCe be

hero, but Still I-

IA Fa

W

9
used rather loosely by scholars describing Leskovian heroes.
The British literary historian Henry Gifford, for example,
alludes to the importance of Leskov's theme of the Righteous

Man in The Novel in Russia but he neglects the major sources

 

within Leskov's works themselves. He entitles a chapter
"Leskov and the Righteous Man," but, unfortunately, provides

no more than a cursory examination of the novel Soborjane

 

(The Cathedral Folk).24 This chronicle, although serving as

 

an important workshop in which Leskov's Righteous Man was
being fashioned, was begun many years prior to the time
when Leskov actually began to portray him.

R. I. Sementkovskij in his critical biographical sketch
partially defines the term "righteous man." He seems to sense
the difference between the Righteous Man and a positive

hero, but still he places Ragogin, the hero of Zaxudalyjrod

 

(A Family in Decline) in both categories:

 

Momao cxaaarb, qro Baxynanun pon nocnyxnn
Havanom uenoro pana oqepxoa, B Koropmx Hecxon
Haqan BuBonnrb "npanennnxoa", To-ecrb uneanbno-
HaCTpoeHHHX nmnen, noropue ymemr ourb nonesnamn
B xnsnn. Ecnn on c oonbmom cnmnarnem naoopaann
aaM rannx uneanncron, xax OBueoux, Pannep (Beanu),
Koaa, HepBeB, Paroxnn H r. n.,--nwnen, Koropue,
Hecmorpa Ha Boaewmennoe CBoe Hacrpoenne, anero
He nocrnramr a Benyr mnanb oponnqym, 6e3npnwrnym,
r0 ero"npaBennnKn" HaO60pOT npnnocar npyrHM
HeCOMHeHHym nonbay H cocraBnHmr TOT Knacc nwnen,
Koropue cunbnee npyrnx nenamr ncropnm, nemramr
Heaamerno, HO BepHO Kynbrypnme ycnexn. B unx
Bonnomaercn nnonoraopnaa paoora, oonee Bcero
ooecnequeammafi onarononyqne ponnnu.

 

24Henry Gifford, The Novel in Russia (New York, 1965),
pp. 73-82.

 

25Sementkovskij, "N. S. Leskov," in Polnoe, I, 43.

Drugov IiS
significant sho
Leskov hir:
of the term "ri
to Cerkow'no—og:

Social Heral d)

 

earlier letter ‘
which Leskov fa
allow for the pi
righteous man 31

nonetheless t re;

 

characteristics

Pepe“;
BePHOe Cup,
“3“". H60
{IpflauaKOB 1
OT cOCuy P
Bossmefifie;
Ka‘lecTBa' }
B neab “Dar
He CHYKaBuE

a 6931111

HOKonHhm
n PE

43%
"1Q

C “nar

‘

MO

 

10
Drugov lists even Ovcebyk, the hero of Leskov's first
significant short story, amongst Leskov's righteous men.26
Leskov himself, however, was not as free in his usage

of the term "righteous man." In 1881 he submitted a note

v . . . .
to Cerkovno-obgcestvennyjvestn1k (The Ecc1651ast1cal and

 

 

Social Herald) reacting against the use of "hero" by an

 

earlier letter writer in place of the term "righteous man"
which Leskov favored. Whereas his logic in refusing to
allow for the possibility that a person could be both a
righteous man and a hero can be questioned,27 we are
nonetheless treated to an inside look at some of the
characteristics he associates with his righteous men.

Peponam orange 59 nquee n name coaceM He
Bepnoe onpeneneune nun xapaxrepncrnxn nmnen CBaron
mnann, n60 MHOPHe H3 CBHTHX He npoannann anxaxnx
npnananon repouama,--"6ueann raxne or npnpona"

"or cocuy marepne", HO cnarue ornnqannce
BOBBHmeHHefimHMK CBonCTBaMH ropaeno oonee Bucoxoro
Kaqecha, nmenno--npaBenHocrbm. Upomnrb H30 nan

B neHb npaBenno nonrym mnanb, He conraB, He oomanya,
He cnyxaBnB, He oropan onnmnero n He ocynnB
npncrpacrno Bpara, ropaano rpynnee qu GPOCHTbCH

B 6e3nny.... Bro Korma-To crporo paarpannqnaan
noxonamn Pepuen, CDaBHHBaH... Kypuna c 6e3M0nBHom
npaBennocrnm HeKOTOpux pyccxnx meamnn "Hecymnx

 

 

npnmennmo x nannomy cnyqam Haxonnm paabacnenne sron_
paaunuu y Maccnnbona: "repoa coanaer cnyqan;
npaBeanxa--emenHeBHaa noonecrb". Pepon momer ourb
aeqecrna; npaBeanx Bcerna eager uncrorom (orcmna
oouqan naBarb caeramnnca opeon naoopameanam npaBenHux).
"Pepou moryr Banynnrb ynnanenne n name yaaxenne

 

26Drugov, p. 93.

271mmediately following Leskov's letter there is an
editorial note suggesting that martyrs givingtheir lives
in love for Christ certainly would deserve the classification
of hero as well.

 

T:

q:

(roaopHT
5035138 B
xpaépeua
31411 repo
Fag-Opflnl
WaOXaIOT
‘10qu H
rpemHHKo
Hanconepi
cUOCOéHE
A n!
'npafiezfi'
KQTOpOe
HOHHTHR'
name “X ‘
”up” yr—‘IHC

Accordinf
above all othe
by day, lifelo
cfrighteousne.
lying, it preSt
as well as the
complaint. SOFT.

dimension, as n

Leskov offered 1

evidence to ex “1
L.

possessing "exal

righteousness

Chapter Two

 

11

(ronopur Boccmer), no anxorna He onnanenamr cepnuamu".
Bonbme Bcero MB npnnmxnn yxaamnarb repoen Nexny
xpaopeuaMH. Bro n B caMOM nene Gamma oomensnecrnmn
BEE reponama B name BDGMH, HO Ppeounbon cnpanennnno
ronopnn, qro "memny reMfl,xan no cnonaM Uncannn, "rne
ymnoxamrca npanennnxn, TaM Becennrcn Hapon". Bor
nouemy n cxaaano, qro "onnn npaBennnx nque racnqn
rpemnnxon", xorn on B uncne nocnennnx oann raxne
Hanconepmennenmne repon, xoropae HanpnM. name
cnocoona'ronopnrb npaBnY. He 603Gb repnrb npymoy".

A norom MHe xaxercn, memny cnonamn "reponam" n
"npaaennocrb" Hano ornmnb He nonycxarb cmemennn,
xoropoe Bpennr ncnocrn n roqnocrn BapaxaeMHx HMH
nonnrnn. Ms B Nepy qrnM namnx repoeB, HO 6e3 mepu
Hume nx CTaBHM npaBeanxon, n60 nepyeM, qro ronbxo
"npn ymnomennn npaBeanxon Boanecennrcn Hapon".

 

 

According to Leskov, the Righteous Man clearly stands
above all other earthly beings. Being righteous is a day
by day, lifelong experience. While attainment of a state
of righteousness disallows such behaviour as cheating and
lying, it presumptively includes purity of action and thought
as well as the passive ability to endure pain without
complaint. Sementkovskij correctly added the dynamic
dimension, as noted earlier. However, based on the list
Leskov offered us in this article, we have sufficient
evidence to exclude Ovcebyk from the select group of those
possessing "exalted qualities of a much higher sort, namely
righteousness." As will be revealed in the discussion in
Chapter Two, Ovcebyk fails to qualify in at least two
respects. He both judges unfairly and he casts himself
into the abyss. Nonetheless, he is sympathetically treated
by Leskov and falls within the scope of this study as a
member of the family of positive heroes.

28Nikolaj Leskov, "O gerojax i pravednikax," Cerkovno-
nggestvennyj vestnik, October 28, 1881, p. 5._

 

 

The "hero’,

no more than 3
av own usage of

n,

The qualifier ,

 

 

 

predominant trai
general ethical
sympathetically
is admittedly so
the category of
to the readers c
usually does p05
0f Character.
hand, while p055
idiosyncracies a
a flawless Chara

Thus Chapte
the Period pre

ce
Man, 1.6-. the 1:
Righteous Man."
sympathetically

a .
S embOdlments

later'RighteOuS

 

 

Righteous Man

 

12

The ”hero" to which Leskov refers in his letter is
no more than a "brave man" and should not be confused with
my own usage of the term as "principal personage of a story."
The qualifier "positive" denotes those heroes whose
predominant traits are taken as being good according to
general ethical standards, and who are obviously treated
sympathetically by the author. It is a general category which
is admittedly subjective to a degree, but, contrasted to
the category of negative heroes, should present no confusion
to the readers of this study. A positive hero can and
usually does possess negative traits, including even weaknesses
of character. The Leskovian Righteous Man, on the other
hand, while possibly displaying certain unpleasant
idiosyncracies and lack of ability in certain areas, possesses
a flawless character according to Leskov's standards.

Thus Chapter One will describe the positive heroes of
the period preceding the appearance of the first Righteous
Man, i.e., the period up to 1879, as the "Precursors of Leskov's
Righteous Man." These are positive heroes, treated
sympathetically by Leskov; they were not created exclusively
as embodiments of Leskov's concept of the ideal, as was his
later Righteous Man. Chapter Two describes Leskov's
Righteous Man himself, while Chapter Three concludes the
study with a description of the late variant of the Righteous
an.whose appearance coincided with the period during which
Leskov was being strongly influenced by the moralistic
teachings of Lev Tolstoj. I have therefore termed this hero

"The Righteous Man in a Tolstovka." During his period of

 

I Tolstojan iiifltie
opmfly tendentic
fighteousness ‘tl
descripticnis lie
effint to achiet
bystqapictures
stme of Tightec

The ccnclus
pwithe heroes
to the end.

1“.

-W approach

amiconparatitw:.

 

important as t} e
de-ernh '

.p aSized art
Fares '

ov reports I

IEgard:

---BOT E

a)‘ I.
KOTopa 1 I
PHFYDH
Ma

X UCXE
h I
vKOBHv

J O

 

l3
Tolstojan influence, Leskov for the first time became
openly tendentious, striving to teach society the
righteousness they had been unable to visualize from the
descriptions he had been offering for so long. In an
effort to achieve this goal, he turned to presenting step

by step pictures of the heroes' actual conversion into a

state of righteousness.

The conclusion summarizes the metamorphosis of Leskov's
positive heroes from the beginning of his literary activity
to the end.

My approach to Leskov's positive heroes is descriptive
and comparative. Artistic analyses become decreasingly
important as the study progresses as Leskov more and more
de-emphasized artistry toward the end of his career.

Faresov reports the following statement by Leskov in that

regard:

...Bor Bam moe maeaae o ceoe: Bce era "xynomaaxa",
KOTOpHX noxaananamr y aac, aaorna namr prname
marypm, aanp., Poaqapon CBoero Conomona a Tarbnay
Mapnonay. Taaax paamepon y mean aeT an onaoa
oarypu. Ponopnr, onaaao, nro a y mean Tyoepoaon

a Axanna, Kan manme.... Baam TOHbKO, qro nepes
nnrbnecnr ner oynyr nararb Toncroro, Typreaena a
mean... H npaqaaon romy anea B aamax npoaeneneaanx,
"cmucn maaaa", a ae'Xynomecheaaocrb". Haaoonee
Banenaau maom Cooopnae, ao nepea nnrbnecnr ner

oaa ae 6ynyr 3aaamarb coooa narammym nyonaay, xaK
ae aaaamaer ee renepb Bypca Homnnoncaoro... A ym
ero-na ae xynomecrneaaoe npoaaneneaae? Henocraer
anece TOHbKO anropa-mucnarenn, Koropun-oa aa CBoax
nneaax npaaec aararenn nepea rpnab aaoopameaaoa am
manna x cyxomy a nacromy 6epery. A Kyna y mean
Tyoepoaon Baaecer CBoero nararenn a xyna mae anra
3a Ham? na a n cam ae anam! K Teprnm Hnaaonaqy
Oanannony, paane? Cnymarb onoaenxym Bonneaaany

a meqrarb o narpaapmecrne nnn Tyoepoaona? Pemarenbao
ae saam, arc-6H n cran nenarb a POBOparb c Tyoepoaonum
ecna-oa oa nBancn no mae coocrneaaon nepcoaoa npa

 

 

MOHX HaCT
n are co:
cnoux ca;
a see 06:
1(paBHaM
nponmemb

pyccxux r
Typrenesa
'npaaezn;
(r. XI),

noporoa y
nmnu c xv

Leskov cc

ofthe value c;

fimse ideas, t

perso

nificatjog

"“1 be the sui

14

moax aacronmax noanranx o xpacraaacrae a rocynapcrae.
H ero coanan, ao Bcrperan 6H ero, Kax Tapac Bynboa
caoax cuaoaea a3 aaeacaofi Konneraa. Paao ana noanao
a ace oomecrao oraecercn Toaao Taame c aenoymeaaem

K pasaam Tyoepoaoaam. Xynoxecraeaaocrbm onaoa ae
npoamemb ero a oao oopararcn K "yqeaam" B npoasaeneaanx
pyccxax nacarenea a aaaner ero Tonbxo y Toncroro,
Typreaeaa a y HeCKOBa... na-Cb, y mean ecrb
"npaaenaaaa" (T. 2) a3 pyccaoro oura a xpacraaacraa
(r. XI), 0 Koropuma nonroe Bpemn moxao anra onaoa
noporoa a panoaarbcn 3a aenoaeneaaaa pon, rne ecrb
nmna c maaaecnocooauma cepnuama.

Leskov considered artistry an obstacle to the preservation
of the value of a work, whereas ideas ensure its immortality;
those ideas, their eXpression, their evolution, and their
personification by the positive heroes of Leskov's stories

will be the subject of this study.

29Faresov, pp. 384-86.

The Prec‘

Leskov"s f;
tothe middle 7(

closely identi f;

 

an unsettled p.01

. ' " ,r. ‘-
W‘PH"

r'. 311;; ‘3

time to test his

:17

   
 

and PETSPCCt ire.

_.<.u'7

precisely the WI
1859 writers WC‘I
journals began t
political positi
to the formulati
ultimately deter
in the extremist

for a new w
th

riter

at no new sign

scen '
e during the

Leskov's be

 

literature. Fr

allowed him acct

r . I
e11810118 train

1
0f rh Charles A

W‘

 

CHAPTER ONE

The Precursors of Leskov's Righteous Man

Leskov's first literary period, from the early 1860's
to the middle 70's was the period in which he was most
closely identified with conservative politics. It was
an unsettled period for him. As a new writer he needed

time to test his untried literary wings--to gain confidence

and perspective. Yet, he came on to the literary scene at

precisely the wrong moment to allow such a luxury. Since

1859 writers were beginning to group, and the leading.
j<7urnals began to associate themselves with a distinct
pc>litical position.1 Ironically, it was Leskov's opposition
tC) the formulation of distinct political categories which

Ulstimately determined his own categorization as a reactionary

irl the extremist atmosphere of the day. The difficulties

ftlr a new writer emerging at this time are shown by the fact
tllat.no new significant prose writer appeared on the literary
Scuene during the entire extent of Leskov's first period.
Leskov's background prepared him well for his entry into
1i3terature. From childhood his mother's noble birth had
allowed him access to Orel high society, while his father's

reBligious training gained him entry into ecclesiastical circles.

1Charles A. Moser, Antinihilism in the Russian Novel
0f\the 1860's (The Hague, 1964), p. 186.

15

At a young age
attitudes of t
the estates ma
his father latl
supplemented b]
Russia, partic:
principal Russi

Leskov was

 

from these expe

Mae 5
I‘O‘I‘OBbze no
er‘0 Ha mec

 

 

I
:72”? '
A. —-"u‘ v

‘Q H0 Kopeaaa
5" K onaoa
“3 5819an

Later he Stated

3 He “3Y‘Ia:
H3803‘IHKaJ4;
BHI‘OHQI C l-
TDaBe HquC
3a Kris/ram“
”ORHaMaTb H
”on Horn}

 

16

At a young age he also learned the habits, customs and
attitudes of the peasants with whom be associated both on
the estates managed by his grandfather and on the small farm
his father later purchased. These impressions were greatly
supplemented by the experience he gained traveling throughout
Russia, participating in peasant resettlement programs as the
principal Russian agent for his Uncle Scott.

Leskov was extremely proud of the knowledge he garnered
from these experiences. On one occasion he remarked:

Mae ae npnxonnnocs npooanarbcn CKBOSb xaara a

roroaae noanran x aapony a ero oury. H aayaan

ero aa mecre. Kaara ouna noopama mae nomomaaxamn,

ao Kopeaaaxom own n. no Bron npaqaae n ae npacran

an x onaoa maone, noromy qro yaancn ae a mxone, a

aa 6apxax y maorra.2
Later he stated:

H ae asyaan aapon no paaroaopam c nerepoyprcxama

asaosqaxama, a n Bapoc g aapone, aa rocromenbcxom

Baroae, c xaaaaxom B pyxe, n cnan c aam aa pocncron

Tpaae aoaaoro... na aa sanamaon naaaacxon Tonqee

3a apyrama nanbaux Bamamea, Tax mae aenpacroaao an

nonanmarb aapon aa xonyna, an xnacrb ero ceoe

non aora.

When dealing with questions involving the peasantry,
Leskov's confidence was at its highest peak, contrasting

sharply with his tendency to tip toe through controversial

issues for which he lacked experience.4 When challenged in

2Faresov, pp. 20-21.

3Povesti, ogerki i rasskazy M. Stebnickogo (Petersburg,
1867), I, 320; as quoted in Drugov, p. 9.

 

4See Drugov, p. 17 where he speaks of the "duality" of
Leskov's literary-political position and Volynskij, N. S.
Leskov (Petersburg, 1923), p. 32 where Leskov is chided for
515 habit of expressing both sides of an issue.

 

17

areas in which he considered himself knowledgeable, such

as on questions of the peasantry or the radical movement,5

he became greatly offended and tended to be vengeful.6 His
vindictiveness to a large part accounts for his poor
treatment at the hands of the radicals and his categorization
as an antinihilist despite certain common attitudes and goals.
Like the young generation, Leskov accepted gernygevskij's
new man as a positive model. He differed with them by
finding no such men in contemporary society, only imitators
and hypocrites akin to the idealists of the 40's.7

The gap separating Leskov from the radicals soon
widened. Though frequently sympathizing with their basic
concern for an improvement of human conditions, he did not
approve of the compulsory means they advocated to achieve
their ends. As times became more tense in Petersburg in

8

1862 with the outbreak of numerous fires, society became

more and more politically polarized. Leskov's practical
solutions to societal difficulties placed him at variance

with the radicals and he came under increasing attack by

SLeskov's acquaintance with dissident thought can be
traced all the way back to his association with exiled Polish
.intellectuals during his Orel school days. He was also
known both in Kiev and Petersburg radical circles.

6For discussions on this aSpect of Leskov's personality
see Lottridge, p. 15, and Volynskij, pp. 195, 213.
v v
7See "Nikolaj Gavrilovig Cernysevskij v ego romane 9E2
delat'?" in N. S. Leskov, Sobranie, X, 13-14.

 

8For a description of Leskov's role in the polemic which
arose as a result of the fires see Edgerton, pp. 171-76.

 

them because ¢
departed Pete:
his first lit!
short story 9
vindictive n31
showing genuir
Vasilij Petrox
alien to the r
Ovcebyk a
Leskov's best
and could easi
that same year
abroad. Any h
of enmity beta“
soon daShed Ki
in 1863, This
and concern f0:
novel w,
the nihilists ‘
in leading 1‘01:
undisguiSed Dre
figurés in an L
is novel was

C .
Ontanat ion a t
appearin
’

 

18
them because of his articles. Confused and frustrated, he
departed Petersburg for Western Europe, and in Paris he filed
his first literary response to the nihilist question--the

short story Ovcebyk (The Musk ox). Judging from Leskov's

 

vindictive nature, this tale appears only mildly critical,
showing genuine concern and sympathy for the nihilist hero
Vasilij PetroviE Bogoslovskij, but rejecting his cause as
alien to the realities of the time.

Ovcebyk anticipated by one year the appearance of

Leskov's best known anti-nihilist novel Nekuda (Nowhere to Go)

 

 

and could easily have been given the same title. Earlier
that same year, in 1863, Leskov returned from his journey
abroad. Any hopes he may have entertained for a lessening
of enmity between the political poles upon his return were
soon dashed with the outbreak of the new Polish insurrection
in 1863. This new uprising caused an even greater awareness
and concern for radical-reactionary groupings. Leskov's
novel Nekuda, therefore, despite its positive depiction of
the nihilists William Rajner (Artur Benni) and Liza Baxareva
in leading roles, came under increasing attack for its
undisguised presentation of a number of well-known nihilist
figures in an unflattering light. Since the publication of
this novel was serialized and Leskov was writing the
continuation at the same time earlier portions were already
appearing, he responded to the criticism revengefully by
increasing his attack, not on the true nihilists, but on their

imitators. The outcome of this episode was the fiery article

 

 

V"'- W

£3

 

of Dmitrij I
Pmfl.FortreS
Meant oar:
na rene;
xypaan,
crpaaaua
[Hecaoa]
Poccaa x.
aeocropoz
paoorarb
r. Creéaa
fins was the j
ins lifetime,
damate the po]
tOpublish, he
journals, ‘the ‘f
£21m-
FOIIOwing E

fiscussion 1,, ti

illustrates the

“Nut of Pisare

 

19

of Dmitrij Pisarev, written from his cell in the Peter and
Paul Fortress, "Progulka po sadam rossijskoj slovesnosti."

Mean oaeab aarepecywr cnenymmae nBa Bonpoca: 1. HaaneTcn
nu Tenepb B Poccaa--Kpome Pyccxoro Becraaxa--xorb onaa
xypaan, Koropua ocmenancn ou aaneaararb aa caoax

crpaaauax aro-aaéynb Buxonnmee aa-non nepa r. Creoaauxoro
[Hecaoa] a nonnacaaaoe ero ¢amanaem? 2. Bannercn na B
Poccaa XOTb onaa aecraua nacarenb, KOTODHH Gyner aacronbxo
aeocropoxea a paaaonymea x caoea penyrauan, aro cornacarcn
paoorarb B mypaane, yxpamammem ceon noaecrnma a pomaaama
r. Creoaanxor029

 

This was the judgement which was to haunt Leskov throughout
his lifetime, taint critical appraisal of his works and
dictate the political position he was to project. In order
to publish, he had to turn to insignificant or reactionary
journals, the foremost of which was Mixail Katkov's Russkij
vestnik.

Following Ovcebyk, the second work I have selected for

discussion in this chapter, Soborjane (The Cathedral Folk),

 

 

illustrates the publishing problems faced by Leskov as a

result of Pisarev's decree.10

It is especially important
to this study because of its three positive heroes, each
bearing a decided resemblance to Leskov's later positive

9Dmitrij Pisarev, "Progulka po sadam rossijskoj
slovesnosti," Russkoe slovo (March, 186$).p . lS.

 

10The production of Soborjane encompasses six full years

of Leskov' s literary activity. It appeared originally in the
garch 29,1867 issue of Otecestvennye zapiski under the title
ajuscie dvizenie vody, But the publication was suspended
after three 1nstallments because of a difference of opinion
between Leskov and the editor Kraevskij involving
unauthorized deletions. In February, 1868 the first four
Chaptersvreappeared in Literaturnaja biblioteka with the
title Bozedomy. The follow1ng montHChapters S- 8 appeared
there also, But then publication was once again ceased. It
was not until April, 1872 that publication of the work was
resumed in Russkij vestnik, this time entitled Soborjane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2..

n

fifi:f m-
N! '

heroes - The re

humble figure
even forgotter
the enormous ,
who could not
Finally, there
Savelij Tuberc
true to himsel
over and over ;
The third
O‘c’arovannv' qt;
\sJ-K
Was refused by

early part of l
v

Lernozemnvj Tel

+

the storv supoo
. '1

anything in rea

aoreover , is t ,1

Philosophical a,

KatkOV.

This d;

 

 

20

heroes. There is Father Zaxarija Benefaktov, the small,
humble figure who seems so insignificant that he is sometimes
even forgotten. There is his counterpart, Axilla Desnicyn,
the enormous, flamboyant but none too intelligent Don Quixote
who could not be missed at even the largest gathering.
Finally, there is the synthesis of the two, Archpriest
Savelij Tuberozov, an intelligent, action-oriented individual,
true to himself and his principles. These figures reoccur
over and over again throughout Leskov's quest for an ideal.

The third story I shall discuss in this chapter is
Ozarovannyj strannik (The Enchanted Wanderer). This story

was refused by Katkov for his journal Russkij_vestnik in the

 

early part of 1873 when it was submitted under the title of

V
Cernozemnyj Telemak (A Black—Soil Telemaque). Katkov rejected

 

the story supposedly because of its lack of resemblance to

11

anything in real life. The significance of the rejection,

moreover, is that it is the first overt indication of
philOSOphical disagreement between Leskov and the conservative
Katkov. This disagreement led to the point where, just two
years later in a letter to Ivan Aksakov, Leskov wrote:

H ueam maorae aacnyra KaTKOBa a 3a maoroe emy

onaronapea, ao naaao aa mean aax £3 nacarenn

oa neacraoaan ae Bcerna onaroraopao, a aaorna

npocro ymacao, no Toro ymacao, are n macneaao

cqaran ero aenoaeaom Bpenamm nnn aamen
xynoxecraeaaoa nareparypu.12

 

11Andrej Leskov, p. 296.

:zLetter to Aksakov, April 23, 1875 in Sobranie,
X, 39 .

 

 

 

LeSROV, forced
attempting to '
with Katkov an:
first literal“,v

Leskov fe]
1875 he again f
a long time fri
from Marienbad:

Booome cne.‘
aaoram cra;
uepxoaaocri
aaaarancn I

At this sarr
W (
Story Of a Jaros
was called Temm‘.

N
in 5° far as it ]
Kiriak, the print
He is LESkov's 0k
apositive hero t
to the opiniOns

influence him t
o

role to be that

21

Leskov, forced into Katkov's camp by Pisarev, was now
attempting to egress. Grossman notes Leskov's dissatisfaction
with Katkov and marks this point as the end of Leskov's
first literary period.13

Leskov felt the strain of his split with Katkov and in
1875 he again fled abroad. In a letter to P. K. Scebal'skij,
a long time friend and political conservative, he wrote

from Marienbad:

Booome cnenancn "nepeBepTaem" a ae mry oamaama
maoram crapam ooram. Bonee Bcero pasnanan c
nepKOBaocrbw, no Bonpocam aoropon Bcnach
aaqarancn Bemen, B Poccam ae nonycaaemax.14
At this same critical time Leskov published the story
Na kraju sveta (On the Edge of the World). It is the true
story of a Jaroslav archpriest,15 and in its original form

was called Temnjak. Temnjak differs from Na kraju sveta

 

in so far as it has no hero whose role parallels that of
Kiriak, the principal positive hero of the later version.
He is Leskov's own fictional creation. The addition of

a positive hero to react to and to suggest alternatives

to the opinions of the archpriest, and to eventually
influence him to his way of thinking, strongly suggests his
role to be that of a reasoner for Leskov himself. An
analysis of this hero will show the extent to which Leskov

has already shaped the Righteous Man of the 80's.

13Grossman, p. 104.

V
14Letter to SEebal'skij, July 29, 1875 in Sobranie, x, 411.

 

 

15L. V. Domanovskij, "Primecanija," in Sobranie, V, 618.

22
These four stories form the basis for our study of
the hero during Leskov's earliest period of literary
activity. The six positive heroes--Ovcebyk, from Ovcebyk;

Tuberozov, Axilla and Benefaktov, from Soborjane; Fljagin,

 

from Ozarovannyj strannik; and Kiriak, from Na kraju sveta--

 

 

accurately reflect Leskov's development in time and attitude,
setting the stage for the appearance of his functional ideal,
the Righteous Man.
The first story, Ovcebyk, like so many of Leskov's
stories, uses the nickname of the hero for its title. In
the first few lines of the story the derivation of Ovcebyk's
nickname is explained.
Knaaxy ery emy nana noromy, aro ero aapyxaocrb
aanomaaana OBueoaaa, Koroporo moxao Banerb B
annucrpapraaaom pyKOBonche x aoonoraa Mnaaaa
Camamxa.
Leskov often employs the technique of creating a hero who
stands out in a crowd. In this case, before the reader has
even met the hero, Leskov has attributed to him an
idiosyncratic feature which creates an unforgettable image.

Leskov then adds:

3T0 Gan ae arner, ae oorarupb, ao aen0Bex oaeaB canbaaa
a snopOBun, aeoonbmoro pocra, Kopeaacran a mapoxonneaaa.
(XIV, 3)

16Leskov, Polnoe, XIV, 3. This and all subsequent citations
from the stories themselvgs are drawn from the 1902-1903 36
volume Polnoe sobranie socinenij. Hereafter their locations
will be noted in parentheses within the text itself. A number
of non-textual citations, including those from Leskov's letters
or important notes pertaining to the stories which are not
in luded in Polnoe will be taken from the 1956-58 Sobranie
so inenij. These will continue to be noted in footnotes.

 

 

23

This description, while creating an overall positive effect,
is essentially a neutral statement. During the course of
this study we shall find that as a rule Leskov's descriptions
of people follow a very rigid pattern. If a person is
physically large,it means that he is employed in or will be
employed in some occupation which will utilize the strength
Leskov has given him. That same person will seldom be
endowed with corresponding mental strength. The heroes
with special mental abilities are normally small of stature
and are employed in occupations which require little physical
exertion. In the case of Ovcebyk, strength clearly dominates
but is not skewed to an extreme. The relative balance of
the description thus suggest that not only will his physical
strength be utilized, but that his reasoning ability will
also be called into play.

As if to establish Ovcebyk's credibility lest the
reader be drawn into the error of making a false assumption
from the animal metaphor, the author quickly adds:

B ¢arype Bacanan HerpOBaaa, onaaao, ae oano
anaero cmemaoro. (XIV, 4)

Now the reader can be certain that he is dealing with a
serious hero and not with just a freak of nature.
Continuing with the description, Leskov bluntly states
what at a later stage will only be implied in the hero's
portrait.
...a BrnnneBmaCB B ero xapae, mapoxo paccraBneaaue

rnaaa, aenBBn ouno ae Banarb B aux anopOBoro yma,
Bonn a pemarenbaocra. (XIV, 4)

24
The reference to "widely positioned eyes" as a phrenological
indicator of mental faculty is also a feature that will be
repeated in future descriptions.

Ovcebyk was a poor man whose father had died when he
was very young. His most outstanding character features
were his generosity to those in need and his expectation of
assistance for himself whenever it was needed. In practical
terms this was manifested by Ovcebyk literally giving the
shirt off his back to a person who needed it and in like
manner taking another's extra pair of boots without asking
when his own had worn out. He never considered the possibility
that the owner might not be willing to part with them.

Ovcebyk's approach amounts to a personal application
of the golden rule with the additional requirement that
all others practice it as well. In his interpretation
of the rule he plainly exceeds the limits of its intent.

He adds an element of self interest which is completely
foreign to the altruistic sense of the scriptural rule.
Were the second party as selfless as Ovcebyk, of course,
his philosophy would cause no problems. Nonetheless, while
being idealistically sound, his approach reflects an
insensitivity uncharacteristic of Leskov's later positive
heroes.

A word of caution must be interjected here regarding the
status of the heroes of this period as models of behaviour.
Whereas Leskov's later Righteous Man was set up as an ideal,

Ovcebyk is not. Both types are, however, positive heroes

 

"11579;. '. f

.173

l' .
. . 'V' J 1
'A ‘9.» —--——-

 

 

and are symp
Righteous Ma
goodness. T
This humanit
the case wit
the nihilist
Leonid Gross:
Leskov‘s ant
Leskovian scl
story was d11
finds in Ovce
caricatures o
ironic T€ferez
his appearanm
While Cor
Grossman's and
They SUmmon a
The emphasis s;
SlnCe he is by

treated.

 

25
and are sympathetically treated by the author. The
Righteous Man was described specifically because of his
goodness. The focus of attention is on his good deeds.

This humanitarian manner is his raison d'etre. This is not

 

the case with Ovcebyk. The center of attention is Ovcebyk
the nihilist, the man of action, and the future of such a man.
Leonid Grossman notes that already at this early date,
Leskov's antinihilistic tendencies are clear.17 Another
Leskovian scholar, M. S. Gorjagkina, agreeing that this
story was directed against the revolutionary democrats,
finds in Ovcebyk none of the exaggeration of Leskov's later
caricatures of the nihilists. Nonetheless, she does find
ironic references to the hero and even overt mockery of
his appearance.18
While containing nothing inherently false, both
Grossman's and Gorjagkina's observations are misleading.
They summon a far too negative image of the primary hero.
The emphasis should be on the positive aspects of Ovcebyk,
since he is by Gorjagkina's own admission sympathetically
treated. Unquestionably, Leskov concluded that the Ovcebyks
were not yet ready to lead a revolution, or that the people
were not ready for a revolution. Nonetheless, this is a very
mild statement considering the fact that it was made so soon

after being severely attacked by those same nihilists. He

17Grossman, p. 127.

18A. S. Gorjazkina, Satira Leskova (Moscow, 1963),
pp. 22-23.

 

 

 

 

N _». y .1 a.
nil»;- — ~

an". ‘
I,

I

was in compl‘
cause, and U
was charactt
1w does not,

calls Leskov

term which a;
nihilists in

could be syunp
and still all.
tactics. ()vc
hero of the t;
indeed egocen‘
Plight of a n1
EIOtheI‘s and re

is to do good

narrOhv ,

tOpica

 

26
was in complete accord with the humanitarian nature of their
cause, and throughout his literary career repeatedly placed
this characteristic as foremost in his positive heroes.
He does not, however, agree with them on tactics. Grossman
calls Leskov's philosophy one of "legal liberalism,"19 a
term which aptly describes Leskov's statement about the
nihilists in the tale Ovcebyk. With this philosophy, he
could be sympathetic to his hero on the basis of his cause,
and still allow him to perish in the end because of his
tactics. Ovcebyk is no career-minded, hypocritical nihilist

hero of the type depicted later on in Soborjane. He is

 

indeed egocentric, but he still shows sincere concern for the
plight of a number of unfortunate Jewish boys, torn from their
mothers and recruited into the army. His purpose in life

is to do good as he sees it. His perSpective, however, is
narrow, topical and non-universal. His eventual early

death indicates that there is a weakness somewhere. In

later stories death or a break in life style, as the case

may be, is interpreted as a strength. It is the ultimate
expression of the hero's willingness to do good as he
understands it, at any cost.

Ovcebyk is indeed a complex hero. When his actions
Oppose those of his creator, Leskov does not hesitate to
depict him comically. What is important, however, is that
Ovcebyk is active. Like Don Quixote, he flails about, makes

mistakes, and often appears foolish. Nonetheless, he is

19Grossman, p. 51.

making an ho

 

wrong.
I. V. S
j to have a cl
1 Ovcebyk. Fi
J with Turgene
hianother a

aDon Quixot

 

early in the

' r - . DH. ”'1.‘ 1)."
'vnuru' Jammy. '

reader.

1
1r. rp.

Kon
B CBHBH
HETPOBaa
K°anome
HHTPHI‘ye
Xenaaae
BHELUHefi

air-'3‘,"

Has interpre1
dted above an

Leskov ex
two Ways. The
his plan Of 3C1

”Rough the mar
Wt

the SchEme

 

 

27

making an honest effort to improve a situation he sees as
wrong.

I. V. Stoljarova, a foremost Soviet Leskovist, seems
to have a clear understanding of Leskov's attitude toward
Ovcebyk. First of all she notes Leskov's general accord
with Turgenev in his exaltation of the Don Quixotic types.20
In another article whe develops the theme of Ovcebyk as
a Don Quixotic figure, noting also that his comic description
early in the story was merely a device used to lure the

reader.

Komaam, xoropun Boaaaxaer B aaaane paccxaaa
B Cana 0 onacaaaem aaaoraaecxon Baemaocra Bacanan
UeTpOBaaa,_B0Bce ae cbnepxar B ceoe aaxoro-naoo
xomnpomerapymmero repon cmucna; aBrop Toano
aarparyer CBoero aararenn, BuaaBaer y Hero ooocrpeaaoe
menaaae "paaranarb" nparnrarenbaym npa Bcea CBoen
Baemaea BBepononooaocra naaaocrb OBueouKa.2

This interpretation goes quite contrary to that of GorjaEkina
cited above and, in my view, comes closer to the truth.

Leskov expressed weaknesses he regarded in Ovcebyk in
two ways. The first way was to depict Ovcebyk's intention,
his plan of action, and then add to this his own disapproval
through the narrator or through Ovcebyk's failure to carry
out the scheme in question. Leskov did this three times,

once symbolically and twice by means of actual test runs by

201. V. Stoljarova, "Gamlet i Don Kixot: ob otklike N. S.
Leskova na rec' Turgeneva," Turgenevskijsbornik (Leningrad,
1958), III, 120.

v
le. V. Stoljarova, "Russkie Donkixoty v tvorcgstve
N. S. Leskova," Russkaja literatura XIX-XX vekov, Ucenye

zapiski leningradskggo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, No.
355 (1971), p. 79.

28
Ovcebyk. In the symbolic incident Leskov used a thunderstorm
to stand for a revolution. While visiting a monastery, the
narrator unexpectedly came upon Ovcebyk. They spent a night
together in a cottage on a lake which had been a favorite
spot for the narrator in his youth. The cottage was inhabited
by two old priests. During the night a violent thunderstorm
arose. Fearing that one of the old priests would be caught
outside in the storm, Ovcebyk went out to look for him. The
storm hit in a fury of thunder, lightning and wind, but
with no rain. During this time the priest returned, but
Ovcebyk did not. As the storm began to abate, the narrator
caught sight of a pine tree across the lake burning from being
struck by lightning. In the light of the burning pine Ovcebyk
could be seen just standing and watching the fire burn.
Leskov's attitude is then inserted through the narrator.

Cron puuapem neaanBaoro oopaaa nepen ropnmem cocaom,
0a mae Kaaancn myrom. (XIV, 47)

The next morning Ovcebyk and the narrator took a walk and
the subject of the storm came up. Ovcebyk expressed his
delight with storms, but the narrator was less sure.

na arc x xopomero-To? Beprar, nomar Bce. (XIV, 48)
Ovcebyk then expressed a view with which Leskov as a legal
libertarian could never agree.

Pm! BOT ro-To a xopomo, are Bce nomaT. (XIV, 48)

The second time Ovcebyk's method was depicted was at
this same monastery just a few days after the narrator's

departure. This time he attempted to organize a few of the

 

 

 

lower ranking ‘9‘
in agitating am'
to this is agaii
monastery.

The final
implementation
of Aleksandr Iv
Ovcebyk was abl
These people ha
work had manage
worked for them
wrote the narra
for all the Ale
money ‘10ng thi
grown for the 3
against them an
this time, howe
Aleksandr IVanc

on OVCEbyk . He

 

29

lower ranking members of the monastery personnel to aid him
in agitating amongst the pilgrims. The author's response
to this is again clear. Ovcebyk is thrown out of the
monastery.

The final incident showing Ovcebyk's attempt at
implementation of his plan was amongst the peasant workers
of Aleksandr Ivanovix Sviridov. Through the narrator,
Ovcebyk was able to secure work with the Sviridov family.
These people had once been poor peasants but, through hard
work had managed to accumulate considerable wealth. Ovcebyk
worked for them for several months, but in the meantime he
wrote the narrator a letter in which he expressed his dislike
for all the Aleksandr Ivanovic's of the world who were making
money doing things like cutting down the forests which had
grown for the sake of all mankind. He also began to agitate
against them and their system amongst the workers. During
this time, however, unbeknownst to her, Nastas'ja Petrovna,
Aleksandr Ivanovig's wife, was making an immense impression
on Ovcebyk. Her kindness and tender concern were challenging
his philosoPhy of hatred for women and freedom from the
enslavement of passion. He requested that he be transferred
to another logging camp and there he continued to agitate
among the working force. When Aleksandr Ivanovig later stopped
by the camp, the workers told him everything that Ovcebyk had
been saying. Frustrated by the fact that he had been sold
out by the very ones he was attempting to help, and

additionally by the fact that his feelings for Nastas'ja

 

 

Petrovna were
hung himself.
found a blood
to wrap a wou
with several
of his inabil
failure and s:
activism.
Ovcebyk's
incidents whic
within himself
occasions. Th
I'eJ'eCtion Of w
Passion. OVCe‘
Believers in t]
he was questiQI

related that w}
took

Off withOL‘

 

30
Petrovna were seriously threatening his own views, Ovcebyk
hung himself. In his chest of personal belongings were
found a bloody handkerchief which Nast'ja Petrovna had used
to wrap a wound he had earlier incurred and a book by Plato
with several passages underlined. These were stark reminders
of his inability to reconcile theory with reality. His
failure and suicide reflect Leskov's attitude toward such
activism.

Ovcebyk's weaknesses are also shown by a series of
incidents which display doubt surfacing about his philosophy
within himself. This was expressed on three different
occasions. The first two incidents involve Ovcebyk's
rejection of women and the freedom from the enslavement from
passion. Ovcebyk once left Kursk to join a colony of Old-
Believers in the North, and while there he married. When
he was questioned about this later on by the narrator, he
related that when the time came for him to leave, he simply
took off without a second thought for his wife. He experienced
no feelings of conscience over having done something wrong.
He then repeated his hard line on women.

Hro eme Ba nmooBB: auaqe yCTaBmaK noaaran--mae

neaa; saBrpa "onarocnOBarcn"--c npyram B qynaa

cnaTB noaner.- Ha a are mae no 6aoa, qro mae no

nmoBal aro mae no Bcex 6a6 aa CBeTe"l (XIV, 51)

His stand was subtly softened a few months later when he sent
a letter to the narrator requesting assistance. At this

time he was already working for the Sviridovs. The essence

of the letter is as follows:

 

mt '
- . g'.“ -‘ o
A'Hfl-m«

'
' sen

 

 

necnrb w
npanaraei
xpecrbnar
a nepeBa1
aroo ae ‘
mon: raa
The letter's
that he was r
indicate a po
against women
The next
been cited in
relationship
Clllminated ir.
he kept with
this rePreset
the validity
The fin:
which appear.
Plato book.
Bacbka

“WT ,

even Vcebyk
fOr him a

a
political

31

necnrb ueHKOBux ceoe ocraBan, a nannecnr, npa cem
npanaraemux, Toraac, 6e3 Bcnaoro unobma, oromnare
xpecrbnacxon neBaue Pnamape AH¢KHOP€HOBOR Myxaaoa

B nepeBam nyou, —caon ryoepaaa, -caoro yeana. na

aroo ae saana or xoro. Bro Ta, aoropan 6ynro meaa

mon: Tax 3T0 en aa cnyaaa, ecna narn ponanOCB. (XIV, 58)

 

The letter's tone as well as Ovcebyk's reluctance to admit
that he was responding in a humanitarian way to a woman
indicate a possible weakening of his old hard line stand
against women.

The next indication of his weakening position has already
been cited in another context. This was the entire
relationship between Ovcebyk and Nast'ja Petrovna which
culminated in the discovery of her handkerchief in the chest
he kept with his belongings. There can be no question that
this represents a very serious doubt in his mind about
the validity of his vews concerning women. .

The final indicator was a note in Ovcebyk's handwriting
which appeared in the margin on one of the pages of his
Plato book.

BaCBaa rnyneul Saqem TH ae non? Baqem TH oopesan

xpunbn y onOBa CBoero? He B paae yaarenB--aapony

myr, ceoe noaomeaae, anee--nary6aax. H rarB, a

are nanbme nonny, TO oonbme CBopym. (XIV, 68)

This is his final confession and his only admission of

error and weakness. These are the manifestations of Ovcebyk's
lack of success. Surely these indications suffice to show
that Leskov could not accept his hero's philOSOphy. But

even Ovcebyk's final statement serves to create sympathy

for him as a person. In this sense Leskov removes the

political name tag and sees only a basically good man. The

 

 

 

seed of LBSkO
here, in the
As we shall n
The seco
is the chroni
positive hero
men are by no
of them are 5
third is meek
are Father Sa
Desnicyn, a (1
many TeSpectS
Zaxarija Bene
he is best de
ground fUrnis
CUriouS figur
independence

ion of Leskov

32
seed of Leskov's future direction has been planted already
here, in the soil of his first serious venture into literature.
As we shall now see, that seed has not fallen on barren earth.
The second story chosen for discussion in this chapter

is the chronicle Soborjane. Soborjane centers around three

 

 

positive heroes, members of the Staryj Gorod clergy. These
men are by no means of equal importance in the story. Two
of them are strong, with completely Opposing styles; the
third is meek and dependent. The colorful dominant heroes
are Father Savelij Tuberozov, an archpriest, and Axilla
Desnicyn, a deacon. The less significant of the three in
many respects, as we shall soon see, is the priest, Father
Zaxarija Benefaktov. Because of the pale image he projects,
he is best described using the contrast of the bright back-
ground furnished by Axilla or Tuberozov. Zaxarija is a
curious figure whose dependent meekness is elevated to
independence in later heroes, thus providing a clear indicat-

ion of Leskov's increasing regard for soft-spoken humility.

As we have noted in the case of Ovcebyk and will see
again later, the initial description of the hero is of
utmost importance in gaining an insight into both the
character of the hero and the role he will play in the
upcoming story. The first person to be described here is
Father Tuberozov.

Oren TyoeposOB BHCOK pocrom a ryaea, ao eme oaeaB

oonp a noanmea. B Taaom me cocronaaa a nymeBaae ero
cans: npa nepBom aa aero Barnnne Banao, qro oa coxpaaan
BeCB nan cepnna a ch aaepram mononocra. Pon0Ba ero
ornaqao xpacaBa: ee name noeBonaTenBao cqararb oepasnom
myxecheaaon apacora. Bonocu TyoepOBOBa rycru, xaa

 

 

 

11". . 7'

f. ,, _-_.
“ ..-.\‘4‘ e .1- .
‘E;w.‘-

Fnaaa y
Oaa Bca
npacyrcr
a onecx

   

Caaenan, 1
Bepnn our:

This descr

0f Father Benef

BCR 9P0 n“

 

33

rpnBa mareporo nBBa, a fienu, Kax xynpa onnaeBa BeBca.
Oau xynoxecheaao nonaamamrcn moryaam qyoom aan ero
Bucoxam nboom a Tpemn apynaumn Bonaama nanamr aaaan,
ae nocrnran HHGQ. B nnaaaoa paanBoeaaon oopone orua
nporonona a B ero aeoonbmnx ycax, coenaanmmaxcn c
ooponoa y yrnOB pra, menbxaer eme aecxonbxo nepaax
Bonoc, npnnammax ea Ban cepeopa, ornenaaaoro aepabm.
BpOBa me orua nporonona COBcem aepau a xpyro
Banomaaauma naraacxamn S-ama anaramrcn y oca0Baann
ero nOBonBao oonbmoro a nOBonBao Toncroro aoca.

Pnaaa y aero xopaaaeBae, oonbmae, cmenae a ncaue.

Oaa ch maaab CBom ae Tepnna cnocooaocra OCBemachn
npacyrchnem pasyma; B aux me onusxae nwnn Banana

a oneca panocraoro Bocropra, a rymaau caopoa, a cneau
ymaneann; B aax me CBepaan nopom a oroab aeronOBaaan,
a can opocana acxpa raeBa--raeBa ae cyeraoro, ae
CBapnaBoro, ae menaoro, a raeBa ooanoro aenOBexa.

B Bra rnasa rnnnena npnman a necraan nyma nporonona
CaBenan, Koropym on, B CBoem xpacraaacxom ynOBaaaa,
Bepan 6HTb 6eccmepraom. (I, 69-70)

This description is then contrasted by the portrait
of Father Benefaktov, the second in rank in the Staryj

Gorod clergy.

Bcn ero nanaocrb ecrb Bonnomeaaan KpOTOCTb a cmapeaae.
CoorBercheaao romy, cxonB mano xenaer aaanan ceon
xporxnn nyx ero, cronB me mano aaaamaer mecra a ero
apomeqaoe reno a xax om crapaercn ae ornrorarb cooom
semnm. 0a man, xyn, Tmenymea a nac. nBe maneabxae
oyxonbxa cepo-menreabxax Bonocaaoa y aero pasBeBamrcn
Toano aan ymama. Kocu y aero aer aaxaxon. nocnenaae
ee ocrarxa acaesna yme naBao, na a T0 omna aoca cronB
maaepaan, aro anaoa Axanna aaane ero ae aaaaBan, aan
mnmnama xBocrax. Bmecro ooponu y orua Baxapan roaao
npaxneea Kycoaea ryooqxa. quxa y aero nercaae, a QB
ax nocronaao capaBaeT a npnaer B aapmamxa ero
nonpncaaxa. Homxa y aero cnaoue, Toaeabxae, aro
aaBuBaeTcn conomeaaae, a cam oa BeCB Toqao cnnerea

as conomaa. Hoopenmae cepeabxae rnaaxa ero cmorpnr
oucrpo, ao nonanmamrcn BBepx oaeaB penxo a cenaac me
amyr mecra, xyna 63 am CHpfiTaTbCH or aecxpomaoro
Bsopa. Ho neram oreu Saxapnn aemaoxao crapme orna
TyoepOBOBa a Baaqarenbao aemomaee are, ac H OH, Tax
me xax a nporonon, anBHK nepmarbcn oonpo a npa Bcex
nocemammax ero aenyrax a aemomax coxpaaan a maBym
nymy a renecaym nonBamaocrb. (I, 70)

Physically Benefaktov can not compare to Father Tuberozov.

For that matter, he doesn't compare physically to any hero

 

 

we shall see
physical sizf
however, in T
physically we
humility almc
to suggest ag
inability. to
Axilla. Afte
to Axilla to
imPosed isola
Tuberozov's d
his previous
he didn't wan:
Benefaktov Stc
restrain AXil]
tOtall)’ unaffe
---Ho Kax

Benefaktov , O f

UR StOry he Cc

is always fel t

exam}? lie

 

of a 8
his PhysiCal

DeaC0n Ax
appmpriate a
His portrait

hiUIBenefak

to
of h

is-
lmDUISi

34

we shall see again. On occasion Leskov will withold
physical size in a manner corresponding to brain power;
however, in no case will a central hero be described as
physically weak. Here Leskov describes his meekness and
humility almost to the point of affliction. There is nothing
to suggest aggressiveness. Benefaktov's weakness and his
inability to challenge evil are even expressed by Deacon
Axilla. After Father Tuberozov's death, Benefaktov came
to Axilla to try to persuade him to renounce the self-
imposed isolation into which he had placed himself upon
Tuberozov's death. Benefaktov suggested that Axilla ponder
his previous violent outbreaks when forced to do something
.he didn't want to do. In one of his moSt courageous moments
Benefaktov stood firm, exclaiming that he himself would
restrain Axilla in the event that he became violent. Axilla,
totally unaffected, replied:

...ao Kan BH momere mean Boanepxarb, Korna BH

xapaxrepa cronB cnaooro, qro Bam name anqox

Cepran rpyoar. (II, 177)
Benefaktov, of course, is unable to restrain Axilla. Throughout
the story he continues to restrain no one. Yet, his presence
is always felt off to the side as a sincere and honest, steady
example of a good person. In the end it is he who, deSpite
his physical condition, outlives both Tuberozov and Axilla.

Deacon Axilla Desnicyn's description is given last, as is
appropriate according to his lowest ecclesiastical rank.
His portrait is not drawn immediately as had been the case
with Benefaktov and Tuberozov. First there is a description

of his impulsive nature, his lack of control, his limited

intellect an
incidents whi
is pictured i

for his col 1e

 

embellish the
Tuberozov.

B cpaBae
Beaemaarr
HenOBeKOI
H no CMO.‘
Upocenb.
Mal-lepax l
Hpanrea;
Uponcxon;
H B caMOb
H XpaGpoc

 

‘ .
’ .9 .. .
. _ , .
g .'...'*'..“_‘._«" £114.. " t‘ 5.5 "rgsxu'

DESpite the b1
the most COlor
this is that b
he often finds

)

 

35

intellect and his gigantic physical size as seen through
incidents which occured during his school days. Then he
is pictured in a briefer, more factual manner than was done
for his colleagues. There is no attempt made to romantically
embellish the description as had been done particularly with
Tuberozov.

B cpaBaeaaa c nporoaepeem TyoepOBOBam a oruom

BeHe¢aKTOBHM Axanna necaanaa momer_aa3Bachn

aenOBeaom mononum, ao a emy yxe nanexo Ba copox,

a no cmonnaum aepaam xynpnm ero npooemana canBaan

npocenB. Pocra Axanna orpomaoro, cana crpamaon, B

maaepax yrnOBar a pesox, ao npn Bcem erom BerMa

npanrea; Tan naua ameer mmaun a FOBOPHT, are

npoacxonar as manopoccnncaax KaBaKOB, or aoax on

a B camom nene Kan Gynro yaacnenOBan 6ecnenaocrb

a xpaopocrb a maorae npyrae xasaaba nooponerena. (I, 73)
Despite the brevity of his introduction, Axilla emerges as
the most colorful of the three churchmen. The reason for
this is that because of his excessive nature and limited wit,
he often finds himself in situations requiring ability
beyond his capacity. His reactions at such times are purely
instinctual, and humorous. At times he appears to resemble
an animal in his behaviour. At other times his actions
are much more like those of a small child, simple and direct.
An example of Axilla's reaction to a situation in which he
was outmaneuvered intellectually but steadfastly refused to
concede his point can be seen in the scene in which he found
himself defending Father Tuberozov's wisdom to the town doctor
who was denying it. Being forced to his only sure point of
superiority, Axilla bodily lifted the doctor to the top of

a cupboard and refused to let him come down until he

decided that the doctor had been sufficiently punished for his

 

 

 

on

Of two

  
  

false views-
under water
word "astrag;
Axilla the u-
the user was

was only late

 

term for ankle

Some of A
it became almo
In one such in
Wicked Termose
denounced. In
hm Capital Wh
“'35 no God. A
Staryj Gorod a;
manner that th:
his View to Tul
do little more
absoIUtely no ‘
use.

with inci(
the chronicle,

Can
accept the

Tub
erO 1
20V 5 deg

 

his 5P9€ch ‘

 
 
 

Biblicah

36
false views. In another incident Axilla held the doctor
under water until he nearly drowned because he used the
word "astragalus," a term Axilla did not understand. To
Axilla the usage of any such term was an indication that
the user was a free-thinker and surely untrustworthy. It
was only later that he learned that astragalus was a medical
term for anklebone.

Some of Axilla's actions were so obviously naive that
it became almost painful to see him acting like a buffoon.
In one such incident Axilla was made drunk and used by the
wicked Termosesov in an attempt to have Father Tuberozov
denounced. In another he returned from an assignment in
the capital where he overheard an explanation of why there
was no God. Armed with these arguments, he returned to
Staryj Gorod and announced to Tuberozov in a most innocent
manner that there was no God. In his attempt to explain
his View to Tuberozov, it is painfully obvious that he could
do little more than ape that which he had heard. He had
absolutely no comprehension of the words he was trying to
use.

With incidents such as these being commonplace throughout
the chronicle, it is with great difficulty that the reader
can accept the transformation Axilla underwent after
Tuberozov's death. At this time Axilla supposedly took
on a measure of Tuberozov's wisdom. This is first evidenced
by his speech at the burial ceremony. The speech consisted

of two Biblical quotations which Axilla had come across

 

 

 

 

while read

B MHP
HaHb

Axilla's s
the though:
really hap;
new hero.
become inte
true that A
on occasion
money he hat
memory of Fe
not necessar
0f intellige
thinking Axi:
a later hero
Leskov's Righ
nl'Cknamed an1
Mind. ThEreJ
acting in the

painted fence ‘

 

37
while reading over Tuberozov's coffin.

B mape 6e a map ero ae noaaa... ...ao Bospnr
aaaB ero me npooonoma... (II, 174)

Axilla's sudden expression of wisdom supposedly sustains

the thoughtthat Savelij's spirit had passed into him. What
really happens here, I believe, is that Leskov creates a

new hero. A person who is unintelligent cannot simply
become intelligent through a traumatic eXperience. It is
true that Axilla still managed to make a mess of things

on occasion, such as the time that he accidentally ate the
money he had put together to purchase a monument to the
memory of Father Tuberozov. This accident, however, does
not necessarily indicate either the existence of or lack

of intelligence. It is merely the act of a bungler. 'A
thinking Axilla is an apt description for Aleksandr Ryiov,

a later hero more fully described below in the discussion of
Leskov's Righteous Man. It is at this point that Ryiov,
nicknamed Odnodum, is created as a character in Leskov's
mind. There is an incident in Odnodum in which RyEov,
acting in the capacity of mayor, leans against a freshly
painted fence while awaiting the arrival of the new governor.
That scene is very similar to the money eating scene involving
the "new" Axilla just described. In both cases an important
and eagerly awaited event is thrown into comic relief by

the clumsiness of the hero. If we look closely, we can

See that really the only ingredient possessed by Ryzov but

lacking in Axilla was reasonable judgement stemming from

38
adequate mental facilities. Physically the two men could
have been identical twins. Both held the Bible in high
esteem. Both greatly respected honesty and demanded it in
those they knew. Both were in similar positions Of
authority, Axilla being in a position of moderate authority
within the church, and Ryiov in a similar position in secular
life. Both were extremely independent. Axilla knew only
one person with any real authority over him.

BenB 3T0, BenB n saam, nro Bee-Tana onaa 92, onaa oren
CaBenan eme mean a conepmar B cyOopnaaauaa.... (I, 86)

Rygov did recognize both secular and religious authorities,
but, as we shall point out, he did not relate to them

from a position of subordination. He cut off the former
mayor's illegal source of gain by practicing honesty, and he
refused the formalities of the church in deference to true
Christianity. Even when talking to the governor Of the
province, Ryhov Spoke as if speaking to an equal. If he

saw something he considered to be dishonest or unjust, he
immediately brought the matter out into the Open.

Another similarity between the two men is the way they
are defended by the wives of their close associates. Rygov
was a favorite of both the wife of the bishop and the wife
of the mayor. Axilla was often defended by the wife of
Tuberozov as well as by the mother of his chief antagonist,
the Nihilist, Varnavka.

Yet, all these similarities are of minimal importance

until the time of Axilla's transformation. It is at that

 

- . ' ~‘I ‘ .‘ . I: 'I ‘
v.5;ah‘9‘"" m E van

U
rel“??-

 

!

adequate menta
have been idem
esteem- Both
those they kne
authority, Axi
within the Chu
life. 30th we
one person wit]

Ben]; 3T0!
Caaennfi e1:

Ryiov did mm
but, as we Shal
from a position
mayor‘s 11188211
refused the for
Christianity.
province, Ryiov
saw something h
immediately bror
Another sir

are defended by

 

38
adequate mental facilities. Physically the two men could
have been identical twins. Both held the Bible in high
esteem. Both greatly respected honesty and demanded it in
those they knew. Both were in similar positions of
authority, Axilla being in a position of moderate authority
within the church, and Ryiov in a similar position in secular
life. Both were extremely independent. Axilla knew only
one person with any real authority over him.

Benn 3T0, Benb H swam, qro ace-Taxu onHH 25, onna oreu
CaBennfi eme mean H conepmur B cy60pnuuaunu.... (I, 86)

Rygov did recognize both secular and religious authorities,
but, as we shall point out, he did not relate to them

from a position of subordination. He cut off the former
mayor's illegal source of gain by practicing honesty, and he
refused the formalities of the church in deference to true
Christianity. Even when talking to the governor of the
province, Rygov spoke as if Speaking to an equal. If he

saw something he considered to be dishonest or unjust, he
immediately brought the matter out into the Open.

Another similarity between the two men is the way they
are defended by the wives of their close associates. Rygov
was a favorite of both the wife of the bishop and the wife
of the mayor. Axilla was often defended by the wife of
Tuberozov as well as by the mother of his chief antagonist,
the Nihilist, Varnavka.

Yet, all these similarities are of minimal importance

until the time of Axilla's transformation. It is at that

Point that
Until the“
the ideas w
rational'

described a'

 

transformat-
up like a d‘

plundered t}

 

hold of him

Axilla was d

 

they remaine

 

were rescued

I luckless per.

I discovered t}
freedom inunec
was strong.

osoBH CO

Axilla‘s meta

HY, KaROl

an FIDO}
Da3YMeer<
anaere, -
CaMH Che
Xpncra p

 

39
point that philosophical considerations can be discussed.
Until then it did not matter what Axilla thought, because
the ideas were not his anyway. Now his actions are
rational. Compare the two incidents involving the doctor
described above with an incident which occured shortly after
transformation. Someone was running around town dressed
up like a devil robbing people and on one occasion had
plundered the sacred monument of Tuberozov. Axilla caught
hold of him and together they fell into some icy water.
Axilla was determined that the devil would not escape, so
they remained in the icy water all night. Eventually they
were rescued and the devil turned out to be Danilka, a
luckless person simply trying to get food. When Axilla
discovered this, he suggested that Danilka be given his
freedom immediately. The reaction against his suggestion
was strong.
...BH counanucr, qro nu? (II, 199)
Axilla's metaphoric reSponse was astute and to the point.
Hy, xaxon TaM counanucrl CBHTHe anocrona, roeopm
BaM, npoxonfi noneM, xnacu ucroprann u enn. Bu,
paaymeerca, roponcxne uepencxne nern, eroro He
anaere, a MH, neru nbaqxoacxne, B yqnnnme, Guaano,
caMH obecrnoe qacro Boponann. Her, ornycrure ero,
Xpncra panu... (II, 199)
The comparison between this Calm reaction to a man who had
desecrated the monument of the person Axilla most admired,
and the violent reaction against a man who simply used a

word Axilla did not understand indicates the extent to which

the reader must strain in order to believe that the two

 

"f
I.‘ "

r:- -

 

 

characters 31

It is if
of socialism.
expressed to
those who ha‘.

H rofibxc
naBaTb I

Tuber033
Positive hero
Axilla. but h
mustanding C
refusal to C07
latter CharaC‘
character tra:
rmrely assertf
finch, if P055
fiequently $01

In the CE
required two 1
asked to give
resolutely ref
church autiu3ri

HHS added to'

an

 

40
characters are the same mature adult.

It is interesting to note that in Rygov the suggestion
of socialistic leanings is also present. His philosophy as
expressed to Lanskoj, the provincial governor, was that
those who have much should share with those who have little.

H Tonbxo groom BceM Tenno oano B crymy. He Hana
naBarb necoa reM, xomy H 6e3 TOFO Tenno. (III, 105)

Tuberozov is a more balanced example of an ecclesiastical
positive hero. He is a very strong willed person as was
Axilla, but he lacks the excessiveness of Axilla. His most
outstanding characteristics are his devoutness and his
refusal to compromise that which he believed. It is this
latter characteristic which will emerge as a repeated
character trait in many heroes. It is not a trait which is
merely asserted as important to a hero. It is something
which, if possessed, must be put to the test. This test
frequently serves as the climax of the story.

In the case of Father Tuberozov, the test ultimately
required two lives. First of all Tuberozov's wife was
asked to give selflessly of herself while her husband
resolutely refused to submit to the dictates of the higher
church authorities. She succumbed to the sacrifice.

This added to the heavy burden already borne by Father
Tuberozov and, although outliving his confinement, he too
soon died.

This story provides an excellent Opportunity to

juxtapose a positive hero to a strong negative character.

In many of Le
never evident

Leskov's
ally of two t
blossoming NI
dangerous neg
threaten Tube

At times it a;

 

story is to 31

illuminating }

4
.qu

 

i
.__"$ha

situations . S

rent—2'7

slzeleton. In
the bOdY Of an
skeleton was t

convinced that

 

prePOtenskij '5

V.
snatched by One

L
MOI pursuit .

 

41
In many of Leskov's stories a strong negative figure is
never evident.

Leskov's negative heroes in the chronicle are basic-
ally of two types. His most visible negative hero is the
blossoming Nihilist, Prepotenskij. Prepotenskij is not a
dangerous negative hero. He is too immature to seriously
threaten Tuberozov. His foe more frequently is Axilla.

At times it appears that Prepotenskij's chief role in the
story is to antagonize Axilla, both for the sake of
illuminating Axilla's character, and to create humorous
situations. Such was the incident with Prepotenskij's
skeleton. In order to get the skeleton, Prepotenskij boiled
the body of an unknown man who had been found dead. The
skeleton was then assembled as a teaching aid. Axilla was
convinced that the skeleton would be buried, and that
Prepotenskij's actions comprised a grave injustice to the dead
man. In a scene reminiscent of the chase in Gogol's

Sorocinskaja jarmarka (The Sorogincy Fair), the bones are

 

 

snatched by one, then retaken by the other with the first in
hot pursuit.

At times Prepotenskij is simply described as a buffoon
and treated quite shabbily by Leskov. This is usually done
when Prepotenskij is placed in direct association with one
of the other negative heroes, particularly with the strongest
of the negative heroes, Termosesov, who represents the
second type of Leskovian negative hero. This type is no

longer just a nuisance, but a bona fide threat to all elements

 

 

 

of society.
elements as
hero, capabl
flmm whereve
is emotional
tothe weake
mrthe descr
Te
UpH orp.
3309030:
Taay He:
xonena r
men nan;
Docnax I
Ppueon E
HHHHHHMI
Bepxaem
rnaaa y

quHHMH
H CMHmne

Asis the C35
of a Person 0.
inthis descr
instead of at'
heroes had dor
PiCtUre with V

TuberonV and

  
 
  

sized body Pa.
itmnf’ but u
like image.
Ina manner 8
senses the We

42
of society. He is as much a threat to the progressive
elements as he is to the conservatives. He is a strong
hero, capable of devouring weaker people, and he attacks
them wherever they may be. Because of his strength, he
is emotionally more akin to the strong positive heroes than
to the weaker negative heroes. This fact is substantiated
by the description Leskov gives of Termosesov.
Tepmocecon me Gun Heqro Hanomuaammee xenraapa.

Hpu orpomnom myxcxom pocre y Hero oano cnomenne

anopoaoe, HO uncro ercxoe: B nneqax on yaox, B

Taay HeHOMepao mnpox; namxn xax nomannaue oxopoxa,

Konenn unencrue n xpyrnue; pyxu cyxne n mnnncrue;

meg nnuHHaa, HO He c xanuxom, Kax y éonbmnncrna

pocnmx nmnen, a nomannaaa—-c aapeaom; ronona c

rpnaon Bpaamer Ha Bce cropoau; nnuom cmyrn, c

nnHHHHM, 6ynTo apMHHCKHM HOCOM u c Henomepaom

Bepxaem ryoon, xoropaa Tameno cannnaCb Ha Huxnmm;

rnaaa y Tepmocecoaa Kopnuaeaoro usera, c peaxnmn,

uepnumn naraamn B apaqxe; Barnan ero npucranen

n CMHmneH. (II, 41)
As is the case of all strong heroes, the description is that
of a person out of the ordinary. There is, however, something
in this description which immediately repulses the reader
instead of attracting him as the descriptions of the positive
heroes had done. Instead of the well proportioned, handsome
picture with which we were presented upon introduction to
Tuberozov and Axilla, we are faced with a collage of assorted-
sized body parts, none of which is especially unusual in
itself, but which collectively comprise a grotesque animal-
like image. The animal metaphor can be pursued even further.
In a manner similar to a wild animal, Termosesov instinctively

senses the weaknesses of his adversaries. He then attacks

that weakness mercilessly until he has destroyed his victim.

 

V' ., . .I ._ _.
. r
- f?" .g

. ~ .
' r a -
. . ‘- , . g
4' "-‘ If ' '. V 1 "'32; 351?..- ~
ogL‘no-urun—h

 

In the short
to conquer 1
pseudo-Nihil
postmaster's
seriously ti
Axilla. In
attack was s
Leskov does
eventually d
stronger per]
his advantage
Without any ]
himself—.11ame
barred". apprc
nature, and 1:
Another
in which they
sPOken, patie

discussed) he

he knew that

 

43
In the short time Termosesov is in Staryj Gorod, he manages
to conquer his supposed superior Bornovolokov, the two
pseudo-Nihilists Prepotenskij and Madame Bizjukina, and the
postmaster's wife. Besides these, he managed to wound
seriously the two principle positive heroes, Tuberozov and
Axilla. In return for all these offenses, not a single
attack was successfully launched against Termosesov, although
Leskov does make sure that the reader knows that he did
eventually do himself in. This is an extremely strong person,
stronger perhaps even than Tuberozov. The only reason for
his advantage over Tuberozov, however, is that he Operated
without any limitations such as Tuberozov had placed upon
himself-—namely a code of ethics. Termosesov's "no holds
barred" approach contrasts sharply to Tuberozov's compassionate
nature, and puts him at a decided advantage in battle.

Another contrasting feature in the two men is the manner
in which they relate to other people. Tuberozov is a soft-
spoken, patient man. Unlike some of the heroes soon to be
discussed, he is not totally without vice. For instance,
he knew that he should not smoke, but for a long time he did
nothing about it. Yet, his goodness predominates and reduces
his faults to mere trifles. Termosesov is quite the opposite.
There is nothing quiet about him. He is a shouter. The
negative characteristics subdue anything positive that may
exist. He was impatient. His quick wit tolerated no less
in those with whom he was dealing. He was attuned to only

himself, whereas Tuberozov was equally as concerned with

 

 

 

those arounc
not totally
Leskov's 131
his fellow n
his own neec
A preli
of the heroe
dealing with
good men, Ov
possess dist
lacking in L.
life is to hr
goal is const
end of his 1i
thESe heroes
80315 is that
institution_
and Concentra
NegatiVe
dependent Upo
Never again u

Leskov allow

   
 

 

their exiSter.

The fol]

deals with t}

44
those around him. It should be noted that Tuberozov was
not totally altruistic as may be the case with some of
Leskov's later positive heroes. Although his concern for
his fellow man is unquestioned, he continues to be aware of
his own needs and desires.

A preliminary overview of the primary characteristics
' of the heroes seen thus far indicates that we are indeed
dealing with multifaceted heroes. Although predominately
good men, Ovcebyk, Tuberozov, Axilla, and even Zaxarija
possess distinct human shortcomings, a feature frequently
lacking in Leskov's later heroes. Their primary aim in
life is to help their fellow man and improve his lot. This
goal is constant in all Leskov's positive heroes to the very
end of his life. The difference between the approaches of
these heroes and Leskov's later heroes in accomplishing their
goals is that these attempt to help others by changing an
institution. Leskov's Righteous Men ignore the institution
and concentrate on the individual.

Negative heroes in the stories to follow are clearly
dependent upon and subservient to the primary positive hero.
Never again until possibly at the very end of his life does
Leskov allow the negative hero as much power as he does

Termosesov in Soborjane. Henceforth the negative heroes owe

 

their existence to the principal positive personage and serve
in the capacity of embellishing his virtues.

The following story to be discussed, Ogarovannyj strannik,

 

deals with the life of Ivan Sever'janovig Fljagin. Fljagin was

 

 

 

 

 

a w;
car:
tO'
in 1

sol:

gent
basi

invo

45
a wanderer in the EiEikovian tradition. His wanderings
carried him into a variety of situations, from one trial
to the next. He rises from the peasantry to the nobility
in the course of the story, but finally retreats to the
solace of the monastery.

It would be difficult to accept Ivan Fljagin as a
genuine precursor of Leskov's Righteous Man purely on the
basis of the plot of his story. He is involved in an accident
involving the death of a monk, for which he is reSponsible.
He tortured his mistress's cat, was flogged and was on the
verge of suicide before being dissuaded by a passing gypsy.
He betrayed a man's trust by turning over his child to his
wife who had earlier left him for an army officer. He
became involved in a flogging match with a Tartar over the
rights to a horse, and later fled to Asia to escape judicial
punishment for his involvement in the match. Finally, he
spent 5,000 roubles of his employer's money on a gypsy woman
who had enchanted him in a tavern.

0n the basis of these events, it would be difficult
even to recommend Fljagin as a positive hero. He, nonetheless,
is treated sympathetically by Leskov and his goodness is
actually revealed in a manner which resembles the pattern

of Leskov's Righteous Man in a Tolstovka, discussed below

 

in Chapter 3. His entire life involves aimless wandering
which includes much physical pain--a type of catharsis which
Fljagin must undergo before being transformed into his final

positive form. While the final transformed product in Fljagin

 

 

 

 

 

is 1
and
dif:
trar
It 1
was
Ovce
of t
it h
In t
when
cont

Lesk

sugg.
discr
have
abou-
Flja‘

appe.

DeSn:
as a
the r

Flja

46

is much different from that of the Righteous Man in'a Tolstovka,

 

and Fljagin's catharsis and transformation are motivated by
different factors, the primitive pattern of raw material
transforming into the finished product is already present.

It has evolved substantially from Ovcebyk in which the pattern
was raw material--transformation--se1f destruction. Both

Ovcebyk and Ozarovannyj strannik are ex post facto descriptions

 

 

of the transformation of the hero. In the case of Ovcebyk
it was a narrator who related his story from his recollections.
In the case of Fljagin it was his own tale, told at a time
when he was already wearing the cassock of a novice. This
contrasts to the transformations in the later stories of
Leskov when the transformation is experienced as it occurs.
There are a series of purely external factors which
suggest a connection between Fljagin and other heroes
discussed or soon to be discussed. The feature to which we
have most frequently alluded in beginning discussions
about a particular hero has been his physical composition.
Fljagin too is described at the point of his initial
appearance.

Bro Gun uenonex orpomaoro pocra, c CMYPHHM orxpurum
nunom u rycrumn Bonnucrumn Bonocamn CBHHuOBoro uBeTa.
(V. 4)

The physical similarity between Fljagin and Axilla
Desnicyn is unmistakable. Fljagin was big and strong, since
as a wanderer physical attributes were more necessary than
the mind. Some scholars have observed that Leskov created

Fljagin in the image of Il'ja Muromec, the powerful hero of

 

 

I I
l
r. I
o ‘ . v ‘
7"“ . . .sv:.uujnf.7"-
m

 

old.

are 1
exiS'
with
poor
havir
in ea
In at
when
These
that

the c

47

old.22

While physical similarities between Fljagin and Axilla
are readily apparent, a number of biographical similarities
exist between him and later positive heroes, in particular
with Alexandr Rygov, the hero of Odnodum. Both men were
poor and grew up in serfdom. Neither had the advantage of
having two parents during their formative years, since
in each case one parent died when the hero was very small.
In addition both began to work at an early age, Fljagin
when he was only eleven and Ryiov when he was fourteen.
These facts, while being mere details, suggest, nonetheless,
that a stronger connection might exist between Fljagin and

the other bogatyr' types.

 

A very fitting description of Fljagin is given by
the prince for whom he went to work upon his return from
Asia. The prince was recommending him to someone who
did not know him.

Mean... ovens He ymeH, a sonorofi mymux--qecruun
n paqurenb (V, 108)

This description might have been included without change
in any one of three later stories. Besides Fljagin himself,

it describes both Ryiov and Golovan of’ Nesmertel'nyj

 

Golovan (Deathless Golovan). In the case of both Rygov and

 

Golovan, however, the positive nature of the hero was not

only evident from the very beginning, but would be obvious

\
22P. P. Gromov, and B. M. ijenbaum, "N. S. Leskov"
in N. S. Leskov, Sobranie, I, XLI.

 

48
in any recounting of the story. We noted that for both
Fljagin and Ovcebyk, merely relating their narrative did
not bring out their basic goodness. This seems to indicate
a basic difference of approach by Leskov to his heroes in
the two different periods. In Odnodum, Rygov is described
from childhood to old age chronologically. The narration
is done by a sane and sober narrator who has no doubts about
the facts or his interpretation of the facts. Golovan's
youth is not described. The first description of him is
made by an adult narrator who is relying on impressions made
on him when he was less than two years old. The objectivity
of this description is much more in question. The story
then follows chronologically, with the enigmatic issues left
for a final explanation by the narrator's grandmother.
Like Golovan, Fljagin too is introduced as an adult, but
the story is told by him from his own perspective. He
flashes back to his youth, and then proceeds chronologically
to the present. In narrating his own story, Fljagin, likewise,
has sacrificed objectivity. This is brought more clearly
to the attention of the reader in his description of the
incident in which he tossed aside 5,000 roubles for the
gypsy girl Crusa. In a masterful description Leskov
describes the incident through the eyes of his drunken hero,
portraying grotesque, distorted images as they appear to him.
Although the reader believes the basic honesty of the hero,
the incident has cast a shadow over the objectivity of his

judgements. Then too, the high quality of the narration

49
itself keeps the reader's attention on the events described
and not on the characteristics of the primary hero.
Mixajlovskij justly noted that "in terms of richness of plot,

..23 In

this perhaps is Leskov's most remarkable work.
both Odnodum and Nesmertel'nyj Golovan the plot istelf was
merely an explication of the hero's goodness.

There is one other factor which is employed by Leskov
to force the reader to look subconsciously for the good in
Rygov and Golovan. Leskov announces these heroes in advance
as noteworthy for their positive qualities. Nesmertel'nyj
Golovan begins as follows:

On caM noqrn mno, a ncropna ero--nereuna. groom

nonecrnonanso Hem--Hano GHTb mpanuyaom, noromy qro

oanM nmnaM aron Hanan ynaerca OfibHCHHTb npyrnM :0,

were can caMH He nounmawr. H ronopm see are c Ton

uenum, qroou Bnepen nonpocnrb ce6e y moero unrarena
cancxomneuua no Bcecroponnemy Heconepmencrny moero

paccxaaa 0 name, Bocnpouaneneaue xoroporo crouno 6m
rpynoa ropaano nquero macrepa, ueM a.(IV, 3)

In Odnodum Rygov is depicted from the very beginning as
a poor fatherless child, hardly a situation creating an
objective attitude. In both Ozarovannyj strannik and
Ovcebyk, no such attempt to prearrange the reader's sympathy
is made.

Throughout Fljagin's wanderings there are numerous
examples of how positive features are interwoven with or
shaded by something negative. He was an excellent outrider

as a lad, but it was in performance of this duty that he

23N. K. Mixajlovskij, "Literatura i gizn'," Russkoe
bogatstvo, No. 6 (1897), p. 104.

 

 

rillrl...l . I

 

 

 

 

 

50

killed a man. He was a good nurse, but he betrayed his
employer's trust and gave the child to its mother. He
won a flogging match, thus physically out-dueling his
opponent. Yet he had to flee Russia because the match was
illegal in the first place. He developed a model friendship
with the gypsy Crusa, but finally he killed her. He perform-
ed a very courageous deed while in the army, but he was in
the army under someone else's name, and the deed was
performed as an act of restitution for killing Gruga.
Unconditional goodness is absolutely impossible in Fljagin.
His very existence is subject to conditions. These conditions
were expressed in a visitation from the monk he had killed.

...6ynemb TH MHOPO paa noruoarb u an pasy He .

nornoaemb, noxa npnner TBoa Hacroamaa noruoenb, u

TH Torna Bcnomaumb marepnno ooemaane 3a Teoa n

nofinemn B qepHeuH. (V, 18)
Fljagin's ultimate salvation is assured as well as are
difficulties along the entire route to his salvation. Para-
doxically, wandering suggests freedom, not confinement, and
Fljagin did have total freedom to choose his own route. His
predetermined end even encouraged a broader expression of
freedom and a more reckless approach. The story then takes
on the appearance of an ancient religious tale based on the

prodigal son theme, such as the seventeenth century Povest'

o gore i zlo‘c’astii.24 The hero of that tale leaves home and

 

24The similarity between the two stories was also noted
by Hugh McLean. See "Leskov and the Russian Superman,"

Midway (Spring, 1968), p. 117.

 

 

be

pr

 

 

pr

de

ft

CC

St

0f

to

ma

gr

St

 

51
during his wanderings is beset by numerous temptations and
tribulations. He gains final solace from the devil in the
monastery, a place into which the devil cannot pursue.
The similarity is further enhanced by Leskov's use of devils
in his story. They are first suggested in the scene with
the dead monk. Then they are perceived by Fljagin in a
drunken state. Once the idea of devils has become a part
of his imagination, alcohol is no longer necessary to
foster the illusion. As a novice in the monastery, he
is endlessly besieged by them, although in each case there
is a rational explanation for what Fljagin interprets as
the work of devils.

Once in the monastery, Fljagin's ordeal is over.' By
being there he has fulfilled his mother's vow and the
prophesy of the monk. He has undergone the purification
process and can emerge in a state of righteousness. A
description of that state is left to Leskov's later heroes
for expression.

The tale Na kraju sveta will be the final story to be

 

considered in this section. It was written in 1875 and
stands on the threshold of a new stage in the development
of Leskov's positive heroes. It is of utmost importance

to this study because Leskov here deals thematically with a
matter that concerned him throughout his lifetime and
greatly affected the way he depicted his heroes. In this

story he clearly establishes the superiority of example over

52
ministry as the means to encourage righteousness on earth.
Leskov remains firm in this conviction throughout his entire
second literary period to be discussed in Chapter Two. When
during the last years of his life he begins to question the
ability of society to understand the example and reverts to
ministry as a means of raising the moral level of society to
a point where they can comprehend, we can perceive Leskov's
final period. This will be discussed in Chapter Three.

The setting for Leskov's message in Na kraju sveta is

 

established in the very first paragraph of the story.

B uncne cooecenunxon Haxonanca neqro onora xannran

B., oqenb noopmn qenonex, HO oonbmon Hananqnx Ha

pyccxoe nnyBeHcho. OH TBepnnn, qro Bamu

mnccnonepu COBepmeHHO HeCHOC06HH x caoemy neny...

(VII, 105)

Since one of the conversationalists is an archpriest, it
would appear that the story would attempt to disprove the
naval captain's assertions. On the contrary it is the arch-
priest himself whose story clarifies and to a large extent
substantiates the truth of the captain's contention. The
tale is brief in terms of plot but is filled with dialogue
and monologue illuminating primarily the characters of three
men; the archpriest himself, a Siberian priest Kiriak and
a heathen sled driver for whom no name is supplied. In
addition, the results of improper missionary activity are
depicted through a comparison of the behaviour of a second
sled driver, a so-called Christian, with the heathen.

The story actually took place when the archbishop was

a bishop in his first diocese in Siberia. At that time he

53
was quite stern and quickly set things in order. Having
completed his housecleaning effort, he moved toward
improving the missionary program which had been gradually
deteriorating. In order to do this, he desired the assistance
of Kiriak, the only priest in the area who spoke the language
of the natives. Kiriak refused to do any more mission work.
While attempting to discover the reason for his refusal and
to put pressure on him to return to mission work, the bishop
came to recognize Kiriak as a sincere and honest Christian.
Kiriak opposed doing mission work by preaching and baptizing
but believed instead that it should be done by living an
exemplary life. He was far less concerned that a person be
called a Christian than that he act like one.

It is clear to see that all the action of this story
centers around Kiriak as the primary positive hero. As
mentioned earlier, Kiriak is Leskov's addition to an otherwise
true story and therefore invites special attention. He
is talked about by other characters in the story before he
is actually introduced himself. According to the priest who
is briefing the bishop about Kiriak, he is very independent,
having refused all requests of the bishop's predecessors
to return to mission work. The bishOp, who had made
considerable progress in his diocese by adopting a stern
attitude with those around him, suggested that Kiriak be
commanded to go out and baptize. When he tried that approach
on Kiriak, the reply he received was equally as definite:

nymy 3a moero Xpucra nonomnrb pan, a erCTHTb raM
(To ech B nycruuax) He craHy. (VII, 114-15)

54
In the same paragraph Kiriak's attitude toward people
in general is given in terms of their attitudes toward him.

H BceMH nwonm: n oparnen, n mupaaamn, n name
aauqHuKaMH. (VII, 115)

When Kiriak is finally introduced, he is described vividly:
Ho npumen x MOHM oan monamex Taxon manenbxnn,
Taxon Tnxnfi, qro He Ha KOPO H BaopOB merarb;
oner B oonnaanon xonenxopoaon pacxe, KHO6YK
ToncruM cyxuom noxpur, cooon qepneabxnn,
Bocrponuuenbxnn, a onnur oonpo, Gee BCHKOPO
nonooocrpacrna... (VII, 116)
This description, filled with diminutives, differs somewhat
from those we have seen previously. It most closely

resembles the description of Father Zaxarija in Soborjane.

 

Both were depicted as being small, almost insignificant in
size. This contrasts sharply with the descriptions of all
the other heroes already discussed. Ovcebyk, Tuberozov,
Axilla, and Fljagin wereall above average in stature and
physically strong. Significantly, however, there is also

a difference in the intensity of the descriptions of Father
Zaxarija and Kiriak. Kiriak's description emphasizes his
self confidence while noting his humility and supplementary
small stature. Benefaktov's description on the other hand
dwells on the old and feeble aspects of his composition.
His weakness and smallness contrast to Axilla's strength
and size. Kiriak has no such counterpart. His small size
has nothing to do with weakness. It denotes rather his
meekness. Leskov does not allow the reader to infer
physical weakness in Kiriak. His very presence in Siberia

along with his former calling as a missionary in the most

 

 

 

rem
acc
liv
for

his

cre
Men
As \

stat

very
dete
by t
5011
his

agar
what
infc

Kiri

The
Kiri
diSC

had I

SS
remote part of the country attest to physical strength
according to the stereotype which has evolved of people
living in Siberia. This is brought to the present tense
for Kiriak by his willingness to accompany the bishop on
his trip into the field.

By eliminating physical weakness in Kiriak, Leskov
creates a hero who much more closely resembles the Righteous
Men serving in similar capacities as teachers or preachers.
As we shall see as we proceed steadily through Leskov's
stable of positive heroes, no one is ever again described
as physically weak, regardless of a small physical stature.

The bishop's first conversations with Kiriak give a
very true reading of his subordinate's character. His
determination and confidence in his convictions alluded to
by the priest who had earlier briefed the bishop are
solidly reinforced. The bishop, slightly frustrated by
his inability to discover the reason why Kiriak is so
against returning to the mission field, asked him in some-
what condescending tones if he had received some special
information pertaining to mission work directly from God.
Kiriak chided the bishop for his imprOper remark:

He cmenca, Bnanuxo; a He Moncen, ooxnn HaopaHHuK
uroou M86 0 oorom 6ecen0BarB; reoe rpex Tax nymarb.(VII, 116)

The list of both external and internal similarities between
Kiriak and other heroes already discussed or soon to be
discussed grows long as his life history is related. He

had only one parent from early youth as had both Ryzov and

 

 

 

IV
ha
32
wh
in

be

Br
to
of
to
se]
for

8X6

his
“0t

Outs

56
Ivan Fljagin. He entered the monastery to seek solace after
having killed a man in the line of duty. This is a situation
again similar to that of Fljagin who also killed a man
while carrying out his work and was as a result brought
into the monastery. While in the monastery, Kiriak's good

. . . . V
behaV1our was noted, a Situation later repeated in Inzenery-

 

bessrebreniki (The Unselfish Engineers) in the person of

 

 

Brjanganinov when in school. In another situation parallel

to that of BrjanEaninov, Kiriak was selected on the basis

of his special talent~-knowledge of language and religiosity--
to go out as a missionary. BrjanEaninov for his part was
selected by the Emperor to be his pensioner. Kiriak was
forced to withdraw from school in Russia right before-his
exams when his father moved to Siberia, but:

H He ooanca, noromy qro nepBuM yqenuxom own a mean
SE 6e3 axsamena B cemnaapnm npnuann; (VII, 120)

Despite these similarities with Leskov's later one-
sided heroes, however, Kiriak retained a round quality
characteristic of all the heroes of this early period. He
was not devoid of all negative traits, even though those
depicted are relatively minor. For example, Kiriak, in an
incident described because he considered its conclusion
to demonstrate the occurance of a miracle, tells how he
misbehaved in school as a youngster. When his teacher would
not grant him permission to take off from school, he went
outside and shouted:

...ornycrnn, ornycrnn! (VII, 119)

57

As a result, everyone went home and he got his day off.
Although by no means would this youthful prank adversely
affect anyone's judgement of Kiriak's basic character, it
does serve to redden his cheeks in comparison to the puritan
BrjanXaninov and make him a more lively character.

While the basic character of Kiriak is important as
a model, it is not the central issue in this story. We
have seen in the first paragraph already how Leskov
introduced a specific issue-~the success or lack thereof
of missionaries. The bishop maintained during his early
stay in Siberia that mission work should be actively carried
on amongst the heathen. In Temnjak, the earlier version of
this story, there was no spokesman for the opposition,
Although the bishop's conclusions were the same in that
version, he was forced to come to them on his own after
witnessing the behaviour of the heathen sled driver during
the storm. His partner on the trip in Temnjak was Peter,
the missionary who had secured a large number of "converts."
By adding Kiriak as a hero, contrasting means to the same
end are offered. Kiriak suggests example as the best way
to teach Christianity.

Ha npocnernrca CBer rBon npen uen0Bexn, Rorna
annar noopua rBox nena. (VII, 124)

He later repeats the same idea again.

A yuurb Hana, Bnanuxo, yanb, na or nooporo
murna npumep HM noxasarb. (VII, 124)

He does not see baptism as the only means of attaining

eternal life.

 

"

 

 

 

insj
on 1
Sin

Kir

lat

rrrm

CL. {7

58

Hy, BOT ME 0 rooom xpemenm, --Hy, 3T0 u xopomo;

HaM BTHM xax onner nan Ha nap; mm a nneM u anaeM

uro mm BBaHH, HOTOMy qro y mac n owner ecrb.

...Hy a Tenepb BnnHM, qro panom c HaMH Tyna me

opener qen0Beqex 6e3 ounera. Mm nymaeM: "Bor
nypaqexl Hanpacno on finer: He nycrnr erol npnner,

a ero npanaanKH BOB BHPOHHT". A npneneM H annnmz
anBpaanxH-ro ero norouar, uro onnera new, a XOBHHH
yBunnr, na, moxer 6HTb, u nycrnrb Benur, --cxaxer:
"Hnuero, qro onnera Her, --a ero a Tax anam: nomanyn,
onnu", ma n BBener, na eme, rnann, nque Haoro,
Koropan c onnerom npnmen, craHeT qechOBaTB. (VII, 127)

It is not the mind, according to Kiriak, which dictates a
man's worth. It is his heart. If his heart is good, his
actions will be good, and eternal life will be his. This
is reminiscent of, and an extension of a character from

another story, Zelenskij's philosophy in Kadetskijmonastyr'

 

(The Cadet Monastery). According to Zelenskij, good feelings

 

lead to good moods, which lead to good behaviour. Kiriak,
operating within the spiritual sphere, takes one more step
than does Zelenskij in his secular capacity.

Kiriak considers it shameful that there are so many
insincere baptized "Christians." Their negative example
on the newly baptized constitutes, in his words, "a terrible
sin." But a question remains. How does one reply to the
very legitimate query on the part of the newly baptized:

...Momno nu 339 cnenarb Bo cnaBy Xpucroay? (VII, 127)
Kiriak's whispered response seems to anticipate Leskov's
' 25

later accord with Tolstoj's position on non-violence.

anero He FOBOpm, a nnaqy Tonbxo. (VII, 127)

25For a revealing discussion on the nature of Leskov's
accord with Tolstoj on the subject of non-violence, see
Edgerton, pp. 400-404.

 

"r.

 

 

 

each
alre
very

thei

He c

was

As -
tru
in
Him
sle
bis
mar
re
re
an
bi

dI

59
Upon completion of the discussion, the veracity of
each view is submitted to an actual test. Kiriak had
already made a positive impression upon the bishop using the
very means he was advocating, namely that of example. As
their conversation ended, the bishop thought to himself:

H no npaBne cxaaarb, BHYTpeHHO BO MHOPOM c HHM
cornamanca... (VII, 136)

He did not, however, give Kiriak any indication that he

was beginning to change his View. Nonetheless, the test

was still necessary in order that conclusive proof be shown.
As far as Kiriak was concerned, he had already perceived
truth, so he set himself up as the victim by seating himself
in the sled with the "converted" sled driver. The bishop,
who was as yet unable to distinguish truth, sat in the heathen's
sled. During the trip they talked and the futility of the
bishop's reasoning became obvious. The heathen was a simple
man. He did not understand abstract reasoning. He could
relate only to that which he could see or feel. Yet the
result of his simple reasoning was a clearer concept of God
and a more sincere faith than could ever be taught by the
bishop's sermons. The heathen believed that if he was happy
and healthy, he must be doing good, for he was obviously
pleasing his god. Baptism into the Christian faith was
impossible, for it was displeasing to his god. This could
be proven by the fact that if he were baptized, he would be
beaten. Furthermore, a baptized person could not be trusted.

If he steals, all he need do is tell the priest and he will

 

 

 

be fo
perso
Chris
salva
he ha
clear

unabl

of Si
actio
where
death

Hen,

Posit
Ovceb
Conti
tradi
What

IEpre

Kiria

heroe

at 1e

hOWev

60
be forgiven. The one who should grant forgiveness is the
person from whom he had stolen. The heathen understood
Christ as a good man, but couId not accept the concept of
salvation. If, after all, Christ could save him, why would
he have to undergo a beating for being baptized. It was
clear to him that Christ was powerless. The bishop was
unable to counter the simple logic of his sled driver.

The final chapter is told out in the snowy wastelands
of Siberia. The "heathen's" goodness was proven by his
actions, remaining loyal to the bishop during the blizzard,
whereas the "Christian's" conduct was responsible for the
death of Kiriak. True to the tradition of the Righteous
Men. Kiriak sacrificed his life for his beliefs.

The heroes who were discussed in this section as
positive heroes together constitute strange bedfellows.
Ovcebyk is a representative of the "new people," a
continuation of Turgenev's Rudin, Insarov and Bazarov
tradition. Axilla and Tuberozov are clerics, representing
what is good in Orthodoxy. Ivan Fljagin is a folk hero type,
representing "the Russian national character."26 Finally,
Kiriak represents the Christian example.

The problem of comparing inherently different types of
heroes is compounded by the fact that they are not all ideals,
at least not as far as Leskov is concerned. They are,

however, all motivated by a similar desire to see an ideal

26McLean, "Leskov and the Russian Superman," p. 118.

 

 

 

situa‘
possfl
their
why 5
unrea
satis
equat

direc

Simp]

alta:

We 51

We“

Vler

The

61
situation, from their perspective, achieved. It is therefore
possible to examine the approaches and manners of each in
their efforts to reach their goal, and seek clues as to
why success could be realized in some cases and remain
unrealized in others. It becomes necessary, then, to be
satisfied with a narrower base of comparison; one which will
equate factors relating to each hero regardless of the
direction his pursuit takes.

Ovcebyk, first of all, was not an ideal hero. Leskov
simply does not lay his ideal heroes on the sacrificial
altar without affirmative results from his positive action.
We shall see how a number of heroes do perish or nearly
so when the jeopardy into which they place themselves for
others is portrayed as the ultimate expression of selfless-
ness. Ovcebyk's death, however, does not fit that pattern.
We shall further pursue the death theme at a later point
since the actual deaths of four of five heroes selected
were described.

In an article published in 1863, Leskov expressed his
view of the hero Bazarov.

Tan BasapOBa MHOPHM HpaBHTCH, MHOPHM He HpaBKTCfi,

no a 65 nosBonnn ceoe nomenarb emy éflTb Hecxonbxo

Mgrqe, Be myconnrb cooom 6e3 Hymnu Henpnauquoro

rnaaa, He paanpamarb 6e3 nena qymon 6apa6annon

nepenoaxn a name, nomanyn, He samuxarb cepnua nag?

‘IYBCTB caMbe HeXCI-IHX, H5O OHM He memaror reponamy.

The article was written only a few months after Leskov had

v
27M. S. Leskov, "Nikolaj Gavrilovig Cernysevskij v
ego romane Cto delat'," in Sobranie, X, 16.

 

 

fir

The

ta}

thf

The

pre

fo:

as

T€<

the

Pe'

wh

TE'

uP
ch
he

 

 

“P

in

th
he

 

be

31:

Se

Ch

re

62
finished Ovcebyk, December, 1862, according to the postscript.
There is no reason to believe that a major change had
taken place in Leskov over those few short months, and
this is borne out in the characteristics of his hero, Ovcebyk.
The qualities Leskov found lacking in Bazarov are either
present in Ovcebyk or are shown to be part of the reason
for his failures. Those qualities characterized by Leskov
as irritating in Bazarov are absent in Ovcebyk or else are
recognized as impeding his cause.

The characteristics in Ovcebyk which stand out are
those things we noted earlier as evolving changes originally
perceived by Ovcebyk as strengths, but later recognized for
what they really were, weaknesses. The changes in attitude
revealed in Ovcebyk will still be dependent for their success
upon his approach to people. This had to be the first
change. He could not assume, as he was doing, that since
he knew all the answers, he could impose his way of thinking
upon others. Ovcebyk was clearly out of bounds in his
interpretation of the golden rule. Once having developed
a new approach, a low key approach, an approach akin to
that expressed in Kiriak and in all the other successful
heroes as we have seen them to this point, further changes
become possible and even develop naturally. The necessary
approach demands tolerance, a trait sorely lacking in the
self-assured Ovcebyk. Tolerance is the basis for effecting
change in others. Tolerance allows the development of a

relationship suitable for acceptance of new ideas. Tolerance

 

shor
by 1
men!
hen
the
lac

neg

 

acc

 

uni

Axi

hav
1 I w goo
' of
Str

p05

 

per

 

The
hi:
He
qu
Th
fa.
Ba:
th;
deg

 

63
shows a respect for the importance of one's fellow beings;
by definition it disallows an involvement with only selected
members of society. In Ovcebyk this was manifested in the
hero's exclusion of women from any role which would shape
the destiny of mankind. They were not only excluded for
lack of a positive contribution, but were rejected as

negative influences. The negnoe Euvstvo of love was perfectly

 

acceptable in Leskov's view of the heroic.

In Soborjane the same point is made. Tuberozov functions

 

unimpaired, and even assisted by the presence of a wife.
Axilla, however, has no wife and no indication is given that
having a wife would alter his life at all, either for the

good or for the bad. The use of two religious heroes instead
{of a single political hero does not alter the fact that Leskov
stresses essentially the same qualities. Here, however,
positive hero is juxtaposed to positive hero. Whereas Ovcebyk
perceived his shortcomings and in so doing approached the
ideal state, Axilla is transformed by the death of Tuberozov.
The qualities of patience and understanding which had escaped
him previously were now an intregal part of his composition.
He reached an ideal state by taking on the necessary

qualities released by Tuberozov at the time of his death.

The implausibility of transferring wisdom does not change the
fact that a measure of wisdom is an essential characteristic.
Based on the fact that most of the positive heroes have more
than just a measure of wisdom, perhaps that is a more

desirable, though certainly nonessential, condition. Wisdom

 

 

 

 

 

 

for A
often
great
of ap
zeal

formi

leger

with

There
descr
him.
of t]
rear
Comm.
thEy
bein
trUe
a gr

eXpr

Even

MiXa

No.

64

for Axilla was necessary to temper his excess-~a condition
often brought on by his inability to reason. It leads to
greater affirmative possibilities just as Ovcebyk's change
of approach allowed further developments. It channels his
zeal and combines with his basic goodness to create a very
formidable hero.

Ivan Fljagin, too, was a formidable hero. His
legendary status dictated such a type, but, as was the case
with the three heroes already discussed:

neCKOB Be nneannaupyer repoa, He Baxonnr B Hem
"Baponuon mynpocru".

There is in Fljagin, however, no transformation actually
described--no before and after comparison by which to judge
him. In order to compare his characteristics with those

of the other heroes, it is necessary to approach from the
rear, i.e., to select those characteristics which were
common to Axilla, Tuberozov and Ovcebyk, in order to see if
they are reflected in Fljagin as well. We saw patience as
being fundamental to our other heroes, and this is also
true of Fljagin. Throughout his many ordeals, he underwent
a great deal of suffering. Despite his suffering, his only
expression of impatience was the incident in his youth when
he killed the monk, and this too must be qualified. This

event touched off the series of small plots to which

Mixajlovskij refers as a "string of beads."29 If any
28Drugov, p. 72

9 C O O O O
2 Mixajlovsklj, "Literatura i zizn'," Russkoe bogatstvo,
No. 6 (1897), p. 105.

 

 

 

 

deve

att

pati
he i
capt
have
Fljz

ignc

res]
seer
devr
Wit
did

dev

The

chi

Th1

thi

65

development in the hero occurs at all in the story, it is
at this point. This is where Ivan becomes a man. This
is where he is first faced with the necessity of recognizing
patience. In one of the best expressions of the patience
he had developed, Ivan, after having spent some ten years in
captivity with the Tartars, is told that Russian missionaries
have arrived. Anxious for the opportunity to be freed,
Fljagin tells them his story. The missionaries totally
ignore him. His initial thought after the insult was:

Hy, qro me Ha sro ponrarb: can nmnu nonmnocraue. (V, 58)

In his relationships to people, Fljagin is in some
respects in a position similar to that of Ovcebyk. We have
seen how with Grusa, the exotic gypsy girl, he eventually
developed an excellent rapport. However, when he lived
with the Tartars, he was given a number of wives, and never
did he develop a relationship any deeper than Ovcebyk had
developed with his Old—Believer wife. When Fljagin was asked
by his listeners if he loved his wives, he replied:

Hmonrb? ...na, ro ecrb BH npo sro? anero, onaa,

uro a or Aramumonu npnaan, ouna no mean ycnymnnaa,

rax a ee anuero...coxanen. (V, 53)
The reason he could be so apathetic toward his wives and
children was simple:

Kaoa nx erCTHTb n npnuamarb ouno KOMY, npyroe

eme 63 neno, a uro me: cxonbxo x xx an yMHomy,

ace can Damn me 6ynyr, a He npaBocnaBHue, na eme

n oomanuaarb myxuxoa craayr, wax Bupacryr. (v, 53)

This attitude remained unchallenged in Fljagin, and in

this respect his depiction contrasts to that of Ovcebyk,

 

w}

tl

 

 

 

 

“L.

CK

 

66
whose view was challenged and found wanting.

Standing on the threshold of Leskov's new period,
Kiriak presents the only picture of an actual ideal. His
entire religious philosophy is based on the principle of
tolerance and patience. His truly Christian attitude is
directed toward everyone around, Christian and non—Christian
alike. As Kiriak lies close to death, he still finds time
to ask the bishop a favor on behalf of the driver who had
abandoned him.

Xpncra pann npocrn n... xax npnnemb nomon, rnann,

apamkam anero 0 new He cxasuaan, a T0 can, nyxanue

nomanyn, Han 6enaaxom-ro caom peBHOCTb noxamyr.

noxanyncra, He cxasmnan. (VII, 166-67)

Kiriak serves as a fitting link between the representatives
of the flat heroes of Leskov's second period and the rounder
heroes of this period. We saw how he was, unlike any of the
heroes of this period with the possible exception of
Tuberozov, the most unafflicted with negative characteristics.

He did, nonetheless, exhibit some evidence of a normal, fun-

loving nature in childhood. As a raisonneur for a Specific

 

issue, however, he does not emphasize the universally
positive character traits expressed by the later heroes.
Some or all of these traits might still be present, but they
are secondary in importance to a specific Russian Orthodox
religious question.

Fljagin, too, is tied down. He is a Russian bogatyr'.
He is unable to transcend national boundaries. Axilla, while

sharing many of Fljagin's bogatyr' features, together with

Tu‘

31'

Or

1a

is

ch

SE

01.

hi

d4

 

 

 

 

 

l!

67

Tuberozov embodies many affirmative human qualities. They
are, however, also tied specifically to the Russian
Orthodox church and to local problems. Ovecbyk is bound to
a very specific political group. Leskov did not tie his
later heroes, Golovan or Brjanéaninov, to any such group or
issue. He loaded them with universally acceptable human
characteristics such as honesty and incorruptibility, and
sent them out into the world. These were peOple operating
out in the open, possessing childlike naivete without any
hint of self-delusion.

As if sensing the dawning of a new hero and the demise
of the old, Leskov addressed himself to the subject of

delusion in Na kraju sveta. As the bishop and Kiriak,

 

headed north, the middle portion of their journey was by
reindeer. Surrounded by unspoiled nature, the bishop related
his impressions and former expectations based on a picture

he had once seen of an event similar to the one he was now
experiencing. It is quite a length quote but expresses an
important thought.

norona croana uynecnaa, u esna Ha oneaax oqub

mean aanumana, xora ona, onaaxo, He conceM

orneqana MOHM 0 Ben npencraBneHHaM. B nercrae

moeM 3 oqub Hmonn cmorperb Ha xaprunxy, rne own
npencraanea nannauneu Ha oneuax. Ho re onean, Ha
xaprnaxe, ounn nerxne, omcrpoaorue, xax anpn crenaue
HeCHHCb, saquyB Hasan ronoaa c BeTBHCTHMH DOPaMH,

n a, ouaano, Bce nyman: 3x, xaou XOTb pas Tax
npoxarnrbca! Kaxaa sro nonxao Garb, npnaruaa
oucrpora npu Taxon cxaqxe! A.Ha nene me 080 Buxonnno
He Tax: nepeno MHom ouna coaceM we re yuocncrae
porarue anpu, a xomonue, ramenoaarue yBaanu c
noaypumn POHOBaMH n MHCHCTHMH, pasnarumu nanamn.
Bemann own nooemxon Hernepnom n Heponnom, cxnoaun
rononu, u c raxom aanumxon, qro Hana c Henpnnqun

Les

beI

am
ha'

th

ch

wi

WI

de

El

 

 

 

 

68

nanocrb opana Ha aux cmorperb, ocoonuao xax y aux

aosnpn sauepana u can pru nopasnnynu. Tax rameno

numar, qro aro rycroe nmxaune ax coonpaerca oonaxom

a ran a oronr B moposaom Bosnyxe nonocom. H era

esna n rpycraoe onnooopaane nycrmnnux xaprnu,

xoropue npn Hen orxpusamrca, npousaonar raxoe cxyuaoe

’aneqarneane, uro name roaopnrb He xoqerca, n MH c

Knpnaxom, enyqu nBa nag Ha oneaax, noqru an o nem

n we 6ecenonanu. (VII, 136-37)
Leskov was now in the process of reevaluating his former
beliefs.30 He himself had been living under an illusion,
and he had depicted his heroes in the same way. Ovcebyk
had deluded himself into believing that he could bring about
a revolution. Tuberozov had deluded himself into believing
that by remaining steadfast he would be able to influence
change in the church and government officialdom. Both his
wife and he himself gave their lives as proof that he was
wrong. Ivan Fljagin lived in a world of illusion. He
deceived himself throughout his entire life by refusing to
enter the monastery. His perception of the world was distorted
by his drinking, creating a dark and chaotic, swirling shadow
inhabited by devils. The illusion is then carried over into
the cosmic world represented by the monastery. Natural

phenomena are interpreted as demoniac, even Fljagin's own

clumsiness. In Na kraju sveta, however, the illusion is

 

transferred to the negative characteristics of the bishop and
the church. It is they who are functioning under the illusion
that statistics are an indicator of success on the mission
field. It is left to Kiriak to dispel the illusion and

30See citation above, Chapter One, p. 21.

 

 

 

 

ac

69
advocate truth. In so doing, his life is given.

Death, we have said, deserves special attention because
of the fact that it is so frequently described during this
first period. At one extreme is Kiriak's death, a death
much like those suffered by the later positive heroes. It
is a magnanimous external gesture of conviction, representing
the testing of the outer limits of goodness. At the other
extreme is Ovcebyk, whose death is not selfless but selfish.
His death, from his own perspective, achieved nothing more
than to get him out of a situation disagreeable to himself.

It was brought on by himself and carried out by himself.
Between these two poles lie Tuberozov and Axilla. Tuberozov's
death actually combines both selfish and selfless elements.
Withholding forgiveness, even though for a purpose is

selfish according to the standards set by the later heroes.
Dying that Axilla may live, however, is an act worthy of
highest esteem. The actual "life" imparted to Axilla by

this noble gesture was of short duration, but it afforded

him an opportunity otherwise impossible to perceive truth.
Having once performed a positive action based on his newly
acquired knowledge, Axilla too expires. His life was complete.

To contrive a composite from this array of heroes would
be a meaningless task. Each hero is representative of a
different non-universal situation, and the differences are
countless. Nonetheless, it is hoped that not only have some
of the differences been pointed out, but that some similarities

have been illustrated. The catharsis to which Leskov has

70
submitted himself has also taken place in his hero, and
the evolution during this period to a purer hero is

apparent.

Nil
.1—

an

pr

11'

 

8D

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER TWO

 

Leskov's Righteous Man

The year 1879 is a significant year in the life of
Nikolaj Leskov, for it marks the initiation of a quest for
an ideal which was to continue unabated until the very
last years of his life. For nine years, until 1887, Leskov
provided examples of Righteous Men as he found them. Volumes
IIIand IV of the Marks edition of Leskov's works are devoted
entirely to a depiction of these Righteous Men. The year
1887 is designated by Buxstab as the beginning of Leskov's
rapprochement with the moral philoSOphy of Lev Tolstoj, when
a distinct shift in focus can be observed in Leskov's
treatment of his positive heroes.1 That new shift in focus
will be the subject of part three of this study. The cycle of
stories under consideration in this chapter, i.e., the cycle
of Righteous Men, provides a perfect chronological fit
between Leskov's "turnabout" as reported above, and his
moral accord with Tolstoj.

After a comment on the term itself, I shall introduce
and discuss the Leskovian Righteous Men. The discussion will

consider their adherence to one of two groups, stressing

1B. Buxstab, N. S. Leskov (Moscow, 1948), p. 14.

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eith«
shal

thei

ove
bet
the
ape
so:
Im]
bu
re

HF

72
either their humanitarian or their ascetic tendencies. They
shall then be compared in the more specific terms of
their religious attitudes, external appearance, the nature
of their work, their values, and their outlook on life.

The term "Righteous Man" is imbued with religious
overtones. Even in Leskov's explication of the difference
between the terms "hero" and "Righteous Man" as cited in
the introduction, the term "Righteous Man" was used as an
apellation for holy men or saints. Leskov then listed
some of the required characteristics of Righteous Men.
Implying religiousness by requiring religious principles
but avoiding direct reference to either Christianity or
religion in general, indicates that perhaps the term
"Righteous Man” is itself an autonomous entity.

Leskov made his own religious position quite clear in
an autobiographical note written sometime between 1882 and
1885. He related both his father's and mother's attitudes
toward religion, indicating his own inclination toward his
father's position.

Pennruoanocrb BO MHe ouna c nercha, u npnrom

nononbno cqacrnnnaa, ro ecrb raxaa, xaxaa paao Havana

BO MHe MHpHTb Bepy c paccynxom. H nymam, qro n ryr

MHOPHM ooaaaa oruy. Marymxa ouna Tome pennrnoaaa,

HO uncro nepKOBHHM 06pa30M, --ona unrana noma axamncru

K xamnoe nepBoe uncno cnymuna moneona n Haonmnana,

xaxne aro nmeer nocnencrena B oocroarenbcrnax mnsun.

Oren en He meman Bepurb, Kan oaa xoqer, HO caM_esnnn

B uepxoab penxo a He ncnonaan Huxaxnx oopanon, xpome

ucnoaenn a cnaroro npnqacrna, o xoropom a, onaaxo,

swan, qro on nyman. Kamerca, are on "rBopnn cue B

ero (Xpncra) Bocnomwaanne". Ko BceM npouHM oopanaM

on oraocnnca c Herepnennaocrbm n, ymnpaa, saneman

"He cnyxnrh no Remy naanxnn". Booome on He Bepnn
B anBoxarypy an mnnwx, He ymepmnx n npn xenaann marepn

Ad

Fe

31

Or

ir

 

 

if». nitrite.
. I! .
_

Sivfrhitua...) ..r

p

a

.hhuwwun

 

Q:

 

l2!

73

esnurb ua noxnoueuue uynornopuam uxouaM u momaM oruocuncu

xo Bcemy aromy npeueopemurenbuo. gynec He nmoun u

pasronopu o aux cuuran nycrmmu u apenuumu, no nononry

manunanca uoubm nepen rpeqecxoro nucsma uxouom Cnaca

Hepyxorsopeuuoro u, rynaa, nmoun nerb: "Homomuux u

noxpoaurenb” u "Bonuom mopcxom". Ou uecomueuuo Gun

Bepymmuu u xpucruauuu, H0 ecnu om ero Baarb '

nosxsameuoearb no xarexusucy @unapera, ro enBa nu

moxuo oano ero npusuarb npaaocnaauum, u on, a nymam,

sroro on He ucnyranca u ue cran om ocnapusarb.

One of the key issues raised by Leskov in this citation
is the necessity of equating faith and reason. Leskov has
no quarrel with the basic content of Christianity.

Adherence to Christian principles is reasonable to him.
Form, on the other hand, is less rational. Form includes
all ritual as well as actual church attendance. Since to
Orthodox church authorities form was considered to be an
intregal part of Christianity, Leskov neatly circumvented
the actual term "Christian" as a designation for his ideals
and substituted in its stead the term "Righteous Man."

The men who play the leading roles in the stories I
shall discuss here are all Righteous Men according to that
definition. They are Leskovian Christians. They adhere to
the Christian principles but reject the alleged hypocrisy
and pretension included in form. They emulate the beliefs
of Leskov who in turn emulated those of his father. The
satire which is present in the stories is frequently directed

toward those aSpects of his mother's Christianity which

were rejected by his father. It is not his mother, however,

2N. S. Leskov, "Avtobiografigeskaja zametka," in
Sobranie, XI, 11.

 

 

 

 

74
or such devout types who are attacked for their blind
faith. These people are being taken in by the church leaders
who bear the ultimate responsibility for the corruption
in the church. In the meantime, however, Leskov does not
idealize the person who is being duped. He too bears some
of the responsibility for having accepted everything on
faith alone. He will often be made to appear comical
because of this blindness, but he is shown no sympathy by
Leskov. Such a man is not cast as a Righteous Man in this
cycle. His role is secondary to that of the
Righteous Man, a man who has already overcome that shortcoming.
At this stage in Leskov's literary activity, he is not
interested in depicting the Righteous Man in deve10pment,
i.e., how he achieves a state of righteousness. Rather, he
depicts him in static form as he is. Only later in his
career as we shall see below does Leskov actually depict
the transformation of his primary heroes from one state to
another.

There are thirteen Righteous Men depicted in the eight
stories of the cycle which will be the subject of the present
discussion. Despite the fact that they all fulfill the
requirements of Leskov's conception of a Righteous Man, they
present a very diverse appearance. Some of them are educated
while others come from simple beginnings with almost no
formal education. We have military men, policemen, churchmen,
men in government service, teachers, and pupils. Because of

the difficulties of dealing with such a magnitude of variables

75
in a comprehensible manner, I have sought to introduce the
heroes of these eight stories in two reduced groups of four
stories each.
Leskov's entire stable of Righteous Men shares two
predominant characteristics--humanitarianism and a sense
of self denial. In the heroes of four of these stories,

Nesmertel'nyj Golovan (Deathless Golovan), Pigmej (Pigmy),

 

Russkij demokrat v Pol'se (Russian Democrat in Poland), and

 

Celovek na Easax (The Sentry), humanitarianism dominates
the hero's tendency toward self denial. His motivational
thrust to do good is pointed outward, away from himself and
in the direction of his fellow man. I have termed these
Righteous Men "Ascetic-Humanitarians" and shall introduce
them as one group.

' In the other four stories, Odnodum (Singlethought),

 

Kadetskij_monastyr' (The Cadet Monastery), Inzenery-bessreb-

 

 

 

reniki (The Unselfish Engineers), and to a certain extent

 

LSXEE (Lefty), the heroes direct their humanitarian acts

or their results in toward themselves, despite the personal
hardship that act causes. These heroes reverse the previous
order of emphasis and are therefore called "Humanitarian-
Ascetics." These two groups are variants of a single theme
and therefore share numerous characteristics. They are
complimentary and not opposing groups and it should be
remembered that this preliminary categorization is done
primarily for purposes of an orderly introduction of an

unmanageably large group of heroes.

76

The Ascetic-Humanitarian Righteous Men are:

l. The hero of Pigmej--a small-time nobleman known
only as "S" whose job it was to arrange the public execution
of physical punishment to wrongdoers before the law in St.
Petersburg.

2. Ivan Fomic Samburskij, the "Russian democrat in
Poland. He was the director of a civilian office responsible
for organizing the administrative chaos following the
Russian conquest of Warsaw in 1831.

3. Golovan, from Nesmertel'nyj Golovan. He had a

 

small farm on which he raised cattle, supporting his family
with the sale of dairy products.

4. Private Postnikov, fated to have guard duty outside
the Winter Palace on the night someone was to fall helplessly
through the ice into the Neva directly opposite his post.

Each of these heroes goes out of his way to render a
humanitarian deed. This humanitarian act serves as the basis
upon which the entire story is constructed. At considerable
risk and great trepidation, Mr S diverges from his long-
standing routine of wordlessly meting out punishment as
ordered by the judge. Listening to the pleas of a Frenchman
wrongly convicted (in his opinion) of offending a young
lady, Mr. S circumvented legal punishment by personally
requesting French diplomatic officials to appeal the case
to the Russian authorities.

Samburskij's humanitarian deed in Russkij demokrat v

Pol'ge was carried out on a much broader scale. Appalled

77
by the large quantity of money and lives lost in the perpetual
Polish conflicts, he proposed a plan which would both shore
up the Western front as well as provide land and income for
many retired military men who were being neglected after
retirement. Bloodshed would ceasebecause of the stability
of the area and both the Polish and the Russians would
benefit. When the plan was rejected, he quit his job.

Golovan distinguiShed himself during the Prokopev
plague which hit the Orel district. Circulating amongst
hovels in which entire families were afflicted with cholera,
he distributed milk and water to the needy. He even gave
his life later during the Orel fires while trying to save
someone.

Finally Postnikov, torn between his sworn duty not to
abandon his post and his humanitarian responsibility to help
a person in need, left his sentry post, made his way out
onto the treacherous ice of the thawing Neva and rescued
a drowning man.

In each of these cases the Ascetic-Humanitarian was
in a position where he could have rejected his humanitarian
inclinations and avoided a considerable hassle. Certainly
Mr. S, Pigmej, would not have been judged critically by
any earthly being for having carried out his duty before
the law. In making a plea on behalf of the Frenchman, he
was exceeding his own authority, arrogating judicial
responsibilities and committing what could have been interpreted

to be a treasonous act due to the poor state of relations

78
between Russia and France at that time. Samburskij's
convictions required that he quit his job rather than
acquiesce to the system of primogeniture which dictated the
rejection of his plan. Golovan was no more responsible for
the cholera victims of Orel than any other inhabitant of
the region, and as sole support for his own family, it seems
equally important that he would protect their interests by
avoiding direct contact with the dread disease. Had
Postnikov adhered to military law, not only would he have
escaped a beating, but would have avoided the uncomfortable
dilemma into which he placed his superiors. He might well
have been verbally commended for that.

Thus, reduced to their lowest common denominators,
the plots of all four stories read: Man, faced with the
option of continuing the status quo at no personal risk
or of easing his fellow man's suffering at considerable
risk, and by Open defiance of a principle or rule, chooses
to help his fellow man. By repeating the theme four times,
Leskov has multiplied its impact on the reader and indicated
that these qualities are indisputably basic to his concept
of the ideal at this time in his life.

Looking more closely at the stories, we see that they all
use the name of the hero in the title. This is somewhat
disguised, but only thinly, by the fact that a nickname
appears in the place of the hero's real name. This nickname
is then explained in the body of the story itself. Using

a nickname makes the use of a given name less significant

79
and the character becomes known as "X" the humanitarian,
. V . . .
instead of Ivan Ivanyc, the man With "X" characteristics.
It is a form of depersonalization and a first step toward
creating a universal hero.

Not only does the hero of this group remain nameless,
he also remains essentially faceless. In only one of these
stories does Leskov draw a detailed portrait of his hero.
In the others, Samburskij, Pigmej and Postnikov all summon
a mental image, but it is a purely subjective picture
based upon the reader's own experience. Golovan, the
exception to the rule, is drawn very carefully:

B Hem ouno, Kax B nerpe Benuxom, naruanuarb Bepmxon;

cnoxeuue umen mupouoe, cyxoe u mycxynucroe; on own

cmyrn, xpyrnonun, c ronyommu rnasamu, oueub xpynumm

HOCOM u roncrumu ryoamu. Bonocu Ha ronoae u noncrpumeuuou

oopone Pononaua ounu oqeub rycrue, unera conu c nepueM.

Ponona Sana Bcerna Koporxo crpuxeua, oopona u ycu

Tome crpumeuue. Cnoxouuau u cuacrnunaa ynuoxa He

ocraBnuna nuua Ponosaua nu Ha muuyry: oua ceerunacs

B xamnou qepre, HO npeumymecrneuuo urpana Ha ycrax

u B rnaaax, ymuux u noopux, uo xax oynro Hemuoxxo

Hacmemnuaux. npyroro Bmpameuuu y Fonoaaua wax 6ynro

He ouno, no xpauueu mepe a unoro He nomum. (IV, 5-6)

Leskov goes on to describe Golovan's clothing.

OneBanca Ponoeau mymukom--Bcerna, nerom u sumom,

B nexnue mapm u E copoxarpanycuue moposu, ou uocun

nnuuuuu, Haronbnau onquuuau rynyn, Ber npomacneuuau

u nouepHeBmuu. H Huxorna He Bunan ero B npyrou

onemne, u oreu mou, nomum, uacreubxo myrun Han 3THM

rynynOM, uasanau ero "BexoseuHuM."(IV, 6)

The significance of this portrait lies not only in its
novelty within the four humanitarian stories, but also in
its permanence within the story. Not only does Golovan act
and react the same from beginning to end, but he also looks

the same throughout. This subtle use of detail causes the

 

. . -
I ._ Ju..u..— .tlr.:~.y .. ...y,.... u . w
:54...»

 

 

 

80
illusion of timelessness. The illusion is reinforced each
time we hear the nickname "Nesmertel'nyj," or "Deathless."
In the quote above, Leskov says that his father used to
refer to Golovan's coat as "vekovegnyj," or "eternal."
These things too contribute to the notion of universality
intended by the author.

Use of detail extends also into a description of
Golovan's living quarters. Leskov pointed out that Golovan's
house was located on a piece of land which seems to have
slipped part way down a steep bank and inexplicably stopped
half way down. This location further isolates Golovan, not
only historically in time, but geographically in place. He
is a part of society, but not totally. He is physically
removed from it. Occupying the entire land area of Golovan's
parcel is his house. The house too is divided, the animals
living on one side and the people on the other. Golovan
lived with the animals, setting himself even farther apart
from humanity. His domicile is his own kingdom, isolated
from the world but close enough to allow for human interaction.

Golovan is not the only hero in the cycle to be isolated.
Each of the other heroes is also isolated, but each has his
own peculiar form of isolationism. Pigmej is isolated in
two ways. Although he appears to have a normal family life,
he still stands apart because of the nature of his work.

As the man who arranges public floggings, he is probably
held in about as much esteem as the hangman.

Samburskij, too, is a person who, while fitting well

81

into his situation, was physically outside Russian society;
His work, for which he had displayed extraordinary talent,
required that he live in Poland. Postnikov was isolated by
his job as well. In general, of course, there is only a
limited amount of isolationism associated with military
life. Postnikov's situation, however, at the time of the
action of the story was as a guard, an in this sense he
was on his own, by himself. And, like his humanitarian
colleagues, he too was operating successfully within the
system, performing a necessary function within his society.
The paradox, then, of being both an intregal part of society
while at the same time being apart from it appears to be
the standard position in which the humanitarian operates.

Just as there were four stories dealing with Ascetic-
Humanitarians, so also are there four dealing with
Humanitarian-Ascetics. There are, however, considerably
more than four Righteous Men depicted, since on two occasions
Leskov chose to depict several heroes in one story.‘ The
heroes of these four stories are:

l. Aleksandr Afanas'evié Ryzov, called Aleksaska and
nicknamed Odnodum. He was a single-minded, small time
Don Quixote whose complexity far belies his simple exterior.

2. The staff of the First Petersburg Cadet Corps, the

kadetskij monastyr'. There are four members of the

 

staff described, but although each has his own area of
responsibility and his own idiosyncracies, they fail to

emerge as distinct individuals. Perskij, the director of

 

 

82

the corps was meticulous in all he did and devoted his
entire life to the cadets. Bobrov, the person in charge of
the economic affairs of the corps, was equally as devoted
to the cadets. He spent his entire 40 years of service
with the cadets, never once deeming it necessary to leave
the corps grounds. He died penniless, having spent his
entire salary on the cadets thrbughout the years. Zelenskij
was the corps doctor. Sharing the devotion of the other staff
members, he too had spent his whole life in the service of
the cadets. The lone occasion upon which hehad left the
corps area occurred when he was required to treat a patient
outside the confines of the corps. The final hero in this
story is an unnamed archimandrite in charge of spiritual
matters at the Cadet Corps.

3. Three students from a school like the Cadet Corps

v
mentioned above, the Inzeneryebessrebreniki. Two of these

 

heroes, Dmitrij Brjanganinov and his friend Mixail Cixagev
whom he overshadows, can almost be taken together as a
single hero, whereas the third, Nikolaj Fermor, is a very
strong hero in his own right. Brjanganinov and Cixazev
leave the military engineering field upon graduation from
school and distinguish themselves rather in religious work.
Nikolaj Fermor, who was less inclined toward religion, went
to work in the field as an engineer, was repulsed by the
graft he found there, and eventually committed suicide from
the frustration of being unable to either affect change in

others or even live an honest life himself.

83

4. Levga, or "Lefty," the talented Tula craftsman,
whose loyalty to his motherland prevented him from accepting
a comfortable position in England and indirectly caused
him to lose his life.

All the heroes of these stories intentionally lived
lives of self denial for others when a more comfortable
alternative existed. Odnodum lived on ten roubles a month
with a wife and child. He ate bread and drank water.
Vegetables from his own garden provided additional
sustenance. Meat was served only on high holidays.

The heroes of Kadetskij_monastyr' denied themselves

 

any life of their own outside of their work. All four
even remained celibate.

v . . . V . V. V
In Inzenery-bessrebreniki both Brjancaninov and Cixacev

 

devoted themselves very early in their lives to that which

they felt to be right.

06a mononae uenoseka pauo cranu Becru camym Bosnepmuym
musub, pasymea Bosnepxuocrb He B onuou nume, no
PnaBHHM oopaaom B uenonymeuuu ceou no rueBa, nxu,
pasnpamurenbuocru, mmeuuu u necru. (IV, 56)

After completing school:
Ouu noeenu oopas muauu camuu crporuu--qucro
mouamecxuu, --coonmnanu nocrume nuu; ue nocemanu
auxaxux yaecenenuu u rynboum; usoeranu Bcnxux
nerxomucneuuux suaxomcra u exenueauo nocemanu
nepxoeb. (IV, 57)
. . . J .
Nikolaj Fermor was from the same mold as Brjancaninov
V
. V . .
and Cixacev. The only notable difference is that he was
not a religious ascetic. Leskov says simply:

...ou ue umen raxou pemumocru, xax Huxauea unu
Bpuuuauuuon, uroou oemarb or cnymou u cxpurbca
non pncy mouaxa. (IV, 72)

 

 

 

84
Yet, he proved decisive in other respects which required
equally as much courage. For example, after graduation
Fermor was sent out into the field on his first assignment
as an engineer. It had become common practice for engineers
in the field to receive a substantial amount of graft money
in addition to their regular government salaries. Although
the Emperor had attempted to weed out the officials
responsible for the graft, their replacements soon succumbed
to the same temptations and the practice was perpetuated.
Fermor staunchly refused his share of the unlawful gain
and steadfastly attempted to put an end to the corruption
manifested by the extra payment on each payday. He attacked
evil with the same religious fervor as had his two
predecessors in the story, Brjanganinov and Cixagev. The
difference between them is no greater than the difference
between a minister preaching inside a church and a moralist
lecturing outside on the church steps.

This leaves perhaps the most difficult of the characters
in the entire cycle to categorize. One must wonder if it is
purely coincidental that this is also one of the best known
stories of the cycle. I have placed Levsa into the group of
ascetics primarily by default. He bears little resemblance
to the humanitarians. He does bear some resemblance to the
ascetics. His specific form of self denial, although
closely paralleling that of the other ascetics, is novel.
Brjancaninov, Cixacev and Fermor, like so many of their

colleagues, each had the option of ignoring that which they

85
considered wrong and live peacefully and prosperously for
the rest of their lives. Odnodum could have supplemented
his meagre wages with bribery as did his predecessors in
the job. No one would have thought less of him. The entire
cadet corps staff could have devoted more time to their
own interests without jeopardizing their positions at all.
Each of the ascetics clearly had an option within immediate-
reach which would have brought him physical comfort. Each
rejected that option because his conscience would not allow
him to accept that which was unethical. Levga did not have
that option within his own society. He was a craftsman.
He lived in the society of craftsmen. There were few moral
decisions to be made. Leskov, however, lifted him out of
that environment and placed him in a spot where an option
did exist. He was seduced by the English craftsman's utopia.
He could choose between modern technology and available
equipment, or the technological wasteland of his native Tula.
His conscience dictated the only possible answer. He would
return to Russia. Like the other ascetics, he rejected the
comfortable choice.

B. M. Forster in his Aspects of the Novel divides the

 

different types of characters in literature into two groups.3

The first group of characters he denotes as being "flat"
heroes and the second group as being "round" heroes. "In

their purest form," notes Forster. "they [flat heroes] are

3E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (New York, 1927).
p. 67.

 

86
constructed round a single idea or quality: When there is
more than one factor in them, we get the beginning of the
curve towards the round."4 He adds later on that flat
heroes "...are best when they are comic. A serious or
tragic flat character is apt to be a bore."5 The pertinency
of the description of the flat hero in the first quote and
the truth of the second citation are very obvious in this
cycle of eight stories by Leskov. It is the story Lgvéa
which, with its contrast to the other seven stories, really
brings this fact to light. ESXEE has begun the "curve
towards the round." Unlike the other characters who are
depicted in their local environments, Levsa is pictured at
home, abroad, at sea, in prison, and before the Emperor. He
embodies a variety of themes, such as patriotism, the
Russian Church, Russian women, the downtrodden man, and the
fate of talented men--a theme further pursued by Leskov in

v
Stopal'sgik (The Darner) and Tupejnyj_xudoznik (The Toupee

 

 

 

Artist). This stands in marked contrast to the one-sided
nature of the previously mentioned stories, symbolized in

the title Odnodum or Singlethought. If success were marked

 

by popularity, a very tenuous criterion at best, but with
certain merit in this instance, then Levga is easily the
most successful story in the cycle. One of the reasons for

this is the balance which Leskov has achieved between the

4Ibid.
51bid., p. 73.

 

Fir»

k.

: Sawflvamidhnt £1.13.

with... ..

H

87

comic and tragic aspects of the hero. We smile as we read
of the choking stench caused by the close proximity of the
craftsmen working incessantly over a long period of time.
We cringe as Levga's reward for his tireless effort is a jerk
of the hair by Platov as he is carried back to the Emperor
to answer for his crime. We smile at Levsa's inept manner
in a foreign situation, and later on at his drinking bout
at sea. We pity the man who is mercilessly thrown about
upon his return to the land he has defended abroad, because
he did not have the necessary papers.

The extraordinary balance of this story is in marked

V .. ..
contrast to Inzenery-bessrebreniki and Kadetskij monastyr';

 

 

the imaginative plot which carried Levsa about Russia is
almost completely lacking. These two stories are almost
completely descriptive, concentrating primarily on the hero
himself and his work.

The hero's work has special significance in all the
stories of this group; it gives the reader an opportunity
to judge the hero on the basis of a comparison between the
reader's concept of how a person would perform in such a job
and the hero's actual performance. Invariably the reader
will set a standard which falls below that of the hero. Then,
when the hero far surpasses the expectations of the reader,
he becomes a bona fide ideal, a model for emulation. In

Kadetskij_monastyr' the three primary characters devote

 

themselves to their work every hour of every day and have

done so for years. They are so virtuous and so conscientious

88
that they become incredible and boring. They are positive
heroes in the classical sense, representing only good.

. v . V. v . v
Brjancaninov, Cixacev and Fermor are the same in Inzenery-

 

bessrebreniki, but there is more of an effort at plot, which

 

allows the hero's qualities to be deduced by the reader to

a small extent instead of merely being listed. The plots
are even more developed in the other stories. As we follow
Odnodum and Pigmej through the various situations presented,
the reader reacts to a stimulus applied through that
situation. In each case the reader's standard falls short
of the standard portrayed by the hero.

In only one instance does Leskov choose to describe an
ideal hero whose work is religious in nature. It is true
that Brjanganinov and Cixagev do turn to the monastic life,
but we first meet them as students planning a life in civil
service. The one ideal churchman is the archimandrite in

Kadetskij monastyr'. He is by far the least important of

 

the characters in this story, and is the only hero in the
whole cycle whose name the narrator can no longer remember.
This may seem somewhat unusual coming from a writer whose
family has carried on the clerical tradition and from a man
whose name in Russian literature is almost synonymous with
priestly types. It should be remembered, however, that

these stories were written at a time when Leskov was
challenging his former views, including his views on religion.
He was very disillusioned with the official church, and

nowhere is this more obvious than in his treatment of the

89

v
bishop in Celovek na casax. Leskov's tale was already

 

complete when he tacked on the episode in which the bishop
appeared. Postnikov had already been punished for his
disobedience and normalcy was returning. Then distorted
rumors concerning the incident began circulating throughout
Petersburg. The bishop appeared as a character and
questioned Svin'in, Postnikov's battalion commander, about
the affair. Svin'in told the bishop the story as it really
happened, and a very interesting exchange between the two men
followed. Svin'in noted that it was too bad that he had had
to punish Postnikov for doing a good thing. Surely Svin'in
expected the bishop to commend Postnikov for his actions and
perhaps even chide him for having punished Postnikov..
Instead, the bishOp in effect rationalized Svin'in's actions.
He said that a serviceman should be punished if he neglects
his duty. Besides, a little physical punishment does not

hurt the simple man [prostoljudin] anyway. The bish0p then

 

went on to say that had Postnikov opted not to save the
drowning man, then, too, he should have been punished. In
other words, according to the bishOp's way of thinking,
Postnikov had no chance of avoiding punishment. At no time
did he suggest that Christian duty take precedence over duty
imposed by man.

The addition of this scene with the bishop is totally
unrelated to any exposition of Postnikov's character. That
had already been completed. Instead, it contrasts Postnikov's

Christian act and the subsequent treatment of the matter by

90
military officials to the very unchristian attitude of the
bishop, representing the official church. The result of the
contrast is very unflattering to the church.

Not only is there a lack of religious types depicted
in the stories discussed here,but organized religion as a
theme or as a motivational factor is largely absent. Levsa
is basically a secular story with mere mention made of the
fact that the craftsmen of Tula were also known for their
religion. The other stories dealing with the ascetics are
more religious in nature, but it should be noted that they
do not deal specifically with religious asceticism. The
asceticism is secular although based on religious principles.
Brjancaninov and Cixacev practiced asceticism in school
before escaping to the monasteries. Odnodum busied himself
throughout his entire life with secular matters. Religion
to him was something he had learned as a boy by himself and
practiced throughout his life in the same simple and sincere
manner in which he had learned it. Contrasted to the
religion of the organized church, his religion was certainly
more appealing.

Interestingly enough, the stories dealing with the
humanitarians, while being in effect dramatizations of the
biblical golden rule, make scant mention of religion. We
have already mentioned how religion was treated in Celovek
na gasax, almost as an afterthought. Pigmej and Russkij

demokrat v Pol'ge contain no churchmen, and Nesmertel'nyj

 

Golovan has only two very neutral appearances by churchmen.

91

In these stories the hero is responsible for his own
interpretation and practice of the biblical truths. The
"middle man" and the organization which supports him have
become corrupted and are therefore corrupting. The basic
truths are there for even the simplest of minds to recognize.

We have examined the image projected by the heroes in
the eight stories. We have also examined the means through
which that image is projected and the motivation for
projecting it. We have seen how the receipt of that image
summons a comparison between the reader and the hero. We
have not, however, looked at how the hero perceives himself,
although this can be largely deduced from what has already
been mentioned. None of the characters in any of the stories
see themselves as especially heroic. Odnodum, perhaps,
comes the closest to expressing cynicism in his conversation
with the new governor, Lanskoj. In the other cases, the
characters remain humble, but very self-assured. The reason
they are so confident in their approach is that they
themselves have their ideal clearly in mind. That ideal, if
not Jesus Christ himself, is a being forged from his image.
With this as the ideal of people of strong character, as each
of these Righteous Men has, in any given situation where
the hero must make a "choice," the choice is merely a fantasy
of the reader. That is to say, the hero has no real option.
He is guiding his actions according to the model of absolute
good. In such a situation he can never surpass the level

of goodness of his ideal and can, therefore, never reach the

92

point where he could perceive himself as an ideal. Taken
in small doses, such stories, especially those which achieve
the balance of which Forster speaks, can be not only tolerable,
but even enjoyable. Taken together. however. one after
another, their effect is as a sedative. Their soothing
predictability lulls the reader into disjoined apathy.

We are ready then to recreate the ideal hero according
to Leskov from among the candidates he proposes as Righteous
Men. First of all, the external appearance is noteworthy.

Some of the heroes, such as Samburskij in Russkij demokrat

 

v Pol'se, are not described. These, however, are distinctly
in the minority. What is most obvious of all the others is
that each has some feature that immediately sets him apart
from the others in society. Odnodum was both a physical
giant and handsome. Golovan was large and very strong.
Pigmej was small. Brjanéaninov was both physically and
mentally superior. Samburskij was known for his outstanding
ability to assimilate, the knowledge of which preceded him
via legend wherever he went. Levsa was grotesque. He was
one-eyed and part of his hair was missing from where it

had been pulled out.

Where no physical distinction existed, such as in the
members of the Cadet Corps staff, Leskov devised another
means of distinction. He set the heroes apart by the clothing
that they wore. Perskij dressed immaculately.

He suam, ouno nu sro meronbcrao y Hero B uarype unu

OH cquran O6HBBHHOCTHIO CJ'IYJKH'I‘b RM 11.715! uac HPHMQPOM
OHpfiTHOCTH PI BOGHHOH axyparuocru.... 0H Bcerna

93
oun oner caMHM popmeuuum, no caMHM_HSHmHHM oopasom:
Bcerna uocun rornamumm rpeyronbuym mnany "no oopme".
(III, 125)

Bobrov and Zelenskij, on the other hand, were Opposite
extremes. Bobrov owned only one coat and he wore it every-
where. Zelenskij went around in a frockcoat which was
sometimes clean and sometimes not, but was always wrinkled.
Even Odnodum who had stood out so much physically, has the
added distinction of having only one set of clothing to
wear for all occasions. For him, however, clothing has a
special significance. Although originally he had but a
single set simply because of his sorry financial state,
ultimately his one set developed into a symbol of
incorruptability. While this may not be the case with
Bobrov or Zelenskij, still, the stories of this cycle
are similar enough to encourage the proliferation of any
symbol through repetition from story to story. The effect
of the symbol on the reader's perception of Bobrov and
Zelenskij is not lost.

In connection with the heroes' physical attributes, a
look at the type of work each does reveals that there is a
link between the two. The heroes who are distinguished by
their size and strength are both involved in types of work
which utilize their strength. Golovan is a dairy farmer.
His work is hard physical labor, a far too demanding job for
a person less physically qualified. Odnodum is also involved

in physical labor. His first job was to carry the mail

between two towns. Here his physical strength was required

94
to combat the forces of nature. His second job, as policeman,
also makes use of this strength. As a matter of fact,
Odnodum's physical size was one of the factors considered
when he was hired for the job.

Amongst the educated heroes, intelligence plays a more
important role. Samburskij, Brjanzaninov, Cixacev, Fermor,
Perskij, Bobrov, and Zelenskij are all somewhat nondescript
physically, but they do stand out intellectually. They
are all involved in work which requires that they use that
intelligence. The degree of success achieved by each hero
underlines the intelligence he possesses. An interesting
description of Brjanganinov illustrates this connection
between work and physique.

... Ecnu BepHTb ppeuonoruuecxum cucremaM Fans u

namarepa, ro qepen Bpanuauuuona annnn npusaaxu

"possumeuuoro ooronouumauua”. (IV, 51)

Phrenological indicators of intelligence had previously
been utilized in Leskov's description of Ovcebyk as well.

The three remaining heroes, Postnikov, Levsa and Pigmej
are all in positions requiring neither physical size nor
special intelligence. In a manner characteristic of the
entire cycle, Leskov conserves those attributes for those
who need them and bestows neither in this case.

Now a more specific description of the physical
composition of the ideal hero is possible. It is obvious
from the broad range of work situations depicted that Leskov

deems no one particular occupation more suitable to an ideal

than any other. He does, however, see to it that his hero

95

has the finest physical or mental qualities demanded by
the job into which he is placed. The physical composition
of Leskov's ideal is always commensurate with his position.

All Leskov's heroes appear to have reached the same
point in their moral development at the time they are
described and then develop no farther. Odnodum is really
the only character whose story is described throughout his
formational years, and in his case the description is from
without, from the narrator's point of view. He tells how
young Aleksaska sat under a tree reading his Bible, but
he does not give us any indication of opposition views or
questions which may have arisen. For all practical
purposes, then, we know only his mature attitudes. On a
small scale this involves the righting of wrongs which he
perceives within his reach. In this sense his scope, like
that of all the Righteous Men, is very narrow, encompassing
only those who live in or come into his world. In few cases
are the heroes involved in anything large in scope unless
the nature of their work provides a larger territory. Such
is the case of Brjancaninov who ultimately achieved a rather
lofty position encompassing more than one monastery.
Otherwise Levsa is the only one whose work in Tula somewhat
incredulously led him to England where his exposure was
greatly broadened.

There is, however, a definite symbolism associated with
Odnodum; this involves the scope of the work with which he

was associated. As a policeman he is in charge of setting

 

 

 

 

 

 

96
straight those who do wrong. The first indication that
this has some special significance as a symbol is the way
Odnodum enforced not only illegal actions, but extended
his authority into the moral sphere as well. At first this
was only slightly apparent from his action of patrolling the
streets at night and bending the ears of drunks, or
rearranging spots at the market so that his own mother
received a worse place. But later on it became much more
apparent when, as acting mayor, he chided the governor for
failing to show the necessary reverence upon entering God's
house. Here he was clearly outside his official jurisdiction
but acting in a manner analagous to pulling the ear of a
drunk in an official capacity. This suggests the broader
possible implications of the character in a symbolic sense.
The thought is further supported by Leskov's reply to the
critic from the reactionary newspaper Novoe vremja (The New
Time) who had suggested that in the place 0f "Levga" one
should read "russkij narod."6 Leskov replied:

H He crauy ocnapuaarb, uro raxan oooomammaa MHCflb
nencraurenbuo ue uyxna moeuy aumucny....7

Levga was published only two years after the appearance of
Odnodum and his idea for the story seems to have preceded

the appearance of Odnodum.8 There are, therefore, real

6B. Buxstab, "Primeganija," in Sobranie, VII, 502.

7Ibid., p. 503 as quoted from Novoe vremja, No. 2224
(May 30, 1882).

8Ibid., p. 500.

97

grounds for such an opinion. This does not affect the
literal interpretation of Odnodum's reach. He still operates
exclusively within the town of Soligalig, but his symbolic
reach extends to the ends of the earth.

Within their own worlds, the primary values reflected
by the heroes were unreproachable honesty and fairness.
Odnodum showed these characteristics by the manner in which

he carried out his job. In Kadetskijmonastyr' Perskij is

 

regarded by the cadets in the following manner:
OH H mun u ymep uecruaM uenonewom, oes nurua u ynpewa;
no aroro mano: Bro Bce eme uner~non ueprom npocrou,
xora, npaBna, BerMa Bacowou uecruocru, woropou
nocruramr Hemuorue.... (III, 128) '
Since the cadets were mere extensions of Perskij's attitudes,
it is not surprising that when Demidov tried to encourage
their favor with candy, they reflected his traits:
Hac uenbsa ouno nonwynurb u sanacwarb uuwawumu
nawomcraamu: MB raw ounu npenauu Hananbcray, no
we 3a nacxu u nonapwu, a 3a ero cnpaeennuaocrb u
uecrwocrb, woropue Bunenu a raxux nmnux, wax
Muxaun Crenauoauu nepcwuu.... (III, 135)
Bobrov is simply equated to Perskij:
...no nocrounchaM nymu, cepnua u xapawrepa aror
Annpeu Herpoauq Gun raxou me BHCOKO sameuarenhuuu
wenoaew, wax caM nepcwun. (III, 136)
O O O O I V O I 0
Samburskij in Russkij demokrat v Pol'se 15 described in
much the same way.

Camoypcwuu Gun manopocc u umen penyranum uenoaewa
ueoouwuonewuoro yma u cnocoouocru, u rawxe ornuqancn
wecruocrbm u uenpewnouuocrsm yoemnewuu. (III, 158)
. . . . . v .
Essentially the same qualities are eXpressed in Brjancaninov

in religious terms:

98

Haoonwocrb u onarouecrue ounu, wamercn, spannewwon
ueprom Bpnwuawuwosa. (IV, 51)

V v
A little later Cixacev too is included into the description.
. . . v . .

Referring to his and Brjancaninov's ascetic attempts to purge
themselves of all evil characteristics, it is noted that:

Bro nano ux xapawrepaM we ronbwo orneqarox onaroponcrna,

no u 6narouecrun, woropoe scxope me ouno sameqewo

cwaqana rosapumamu, a norom wauanbcrsom. (IV, 56)
Nikolaj Fermor is the last of the engineer group to be

. . . V .

depicted. The group that he now leads Since Brjancaninov

V. v . .
and Cixacev have finished school has taken a turn away from
religious involvement although the basic qualities of
honesty and nobility are as important as they ever were.
Upon completion of school, Fermor was sent out into the field
to Warsaw and there the corruption so disillusioned him that
he bemoaned the fate of an honest man.

H noranwsamcs, uro y wac uecrwo murb ouewb rpynwo

u name wesosmomwo. Hanpacwo waM B rawom cnywae

npencrasnnnr npumepw us muswu uymux waponos. V

npyrux Buronwo ours qecrqu, a y wac wer. Y wac c

yMOM u c qecrwocrbm ooxonnrcn wecpaswewwo cyposee

u 6ecnomanwee, qu c 6esnapwocrbm u c ucwarenbcrsom.

Y wac c qecrwocrbm moxwo ronbwo crpanarb u npecmwwarbcn.

H see usxun, eme nowru we wawuwan murb. Ecnu on y

News Sun can, w on renepb yme we swan, xaw ero BOCHHTaTb.

HroGH on own wecuacrnus, wano, uroou on we own ouewb

uecrew u wa ace own crosopuus. Or sroro n wuworna we

oyny umerb csoeu ceMLu. Ha wecrwux nmneu xopomo

nmoosarbcn co cropoww, wo myuurenbwo sacrasnnrb

wenosewa nepewocurb Bce B ero coocrsewwou woxe.

Sanymusamcp name, crour nu murb u camomy. (IV, 79-80)
Being unable to answer that question positively, Fermor,
ironically, became the tragic victim of his own strength
of character.

. . v
The remaining three heroes, Levsa, Golovan and

Postnikov lack direct references to these qualities. It is

99
clear from their actions, however, that they do indeed
manifest them.

It is honesty, then, that is the predominant
characteristic emanating from the soul of the hero. Honesty,
especially honesty to oneself, dictates truth; and those
truths comprise the network of associated values held most
dear to each hero.

The outlook of the heroes in these eight stories is
almost exclusively optimistic. The notable exception is
Nikolaj Fermor whose experience with honesty included only
pain and led to suicide. The inevitable question arising
from this tragic ending is, why in this one instance was
Leskov pessimistic.

Stoljarova, in an effort to maintain consistency,
sees no evidence of pessimism in any of Leskov's stories of
Righteous Men, including this one.9 She lumps it with all
the other stories having sad endings and uses that as
evidence that Leskov does not overrate the strength of his

10

heroes. In another article she interprets the sad endings

as representing a "sober note of skepticism" on Leskov's part.11
Although Leskov was not creating any omnipotent beings at this
time, it would seem the sad endings serve an additional

function; they reflect the heroes willingness to "cast

91. V. Stoljarova, "Russkie donkixoty v tvorgestve
N. S. Leskova," p. 94.

lolbid.

11I. V. Stoljarova, "N. S. Leskov i G. I. Uspenskij,"
Russkaja literatura, No. 3 (1974), p. 90. -

 

100
himself into the abyss."12 Nothing is so sacred to Leskov's
Righteous Men to be withheld from sacrifice--not jobs, not
happiness nor even one's own life. The sad ending of
Nikolaj Fermor's tale is not at all consistent with that
pattern. His death is brought about by his own hand. 'It
serves no purpose toward the furtherance of the ideal Leskov
was depicting. It is totally devoid of the nobility of
Golovan's life sacrifice or even Samburskij's career
sacrifice. Fermor is unlike the others in that he cannot
bear the tittering asides of those around him and just go
on living a righteous life for its own intrinsic value.
He must change others in order to make the world tolerable
for himself. Lacking the finesse of an Odnodum, the innate
sense of when to see and when to avoid confrontation, he
is doomed to failure.

Stoljarova's use of the term "skepticism" if properly
applied to Fermor alone, coincides with my own use of the
stronger term "pessimism" in describing Leskov's attitude
in this one story. We both seem to sense his disillusionment
with his method of merely providing static examples of

Righteous Men. Inzenery-bessrebreniki first appeared in

 

1887, when Leskov was already being deeply influenced by
Tolstoj's religious views. In the early 1890's he made a
statement to Faresov indicating that he recognized a deteri-

oration of contemporary society, that it was losing touch

12See Introduction, p. 10.

101
with the Christian ideal.13 Tolstoj maintained that moral
perfection was a prerequisite to the comprehension of an
ideal. In the context of a discussion about the accord
between Leskov's views and his own, Tolstoj remarked shortly

after Leskov's death:

Bes MOpaanOI‘O cosepmewcraosawun 1110.116“ prnHO
pewomewnosarb HM HOBbIe uneanu.

Leskov's tactics did begin to change at about this time.

He seems to realize that Tolstoj is correct. He must first
of all seek to transform society by moralistic teaching and
preaching before the ideals he has been recommending can

be effective.

The pessimism expressed by Nikolaj Fermor's death
could well be an indication of the shock Leskov felt when
he realized the extent to which society had strayed.

The last major point to discuss in reconstructing the
hero is to establish his position in his society and
his method of interaction with other members of that society,
be they in a position of either inferior or superior
authority.

Odnodum, as a policeman, was in an excellent position
to relate socially both with his superiors and with those
over whom he held authority. The full potential of this
situation was not, however, realized. Externally he

displayed a silent, sober respect for those authorities with

13Faresov, p. 379.
14Ibid., p. 71.

 

102
whom he dealt from day to day, namely the mayor in matters
of secular concern and the priest in spiritual matters. He
could do so because he was never issued an order directly
challenging his principles. For example, the mayor was
gravely distressed over the fact that his extra income was
cut off when Odnodum failed to collect bribes. Nonetheless,
he never once went to Odnodum to tell him that he must
collect them. The situation with the priest was much the
same. When the priest told Odnodum to do something, he
obeyed. It seems that if a person obeyed his priest on
every occasion, he would certainly be judged a model Christian.
This was not the case with Odnodum. His faith was still
considered suspect. He accomplished this feat by intentionally
avoiding situations in which he would have to defy the
priest. When his mother died, he cut out all the frills
which would have been both beyond his meansznulhypocritical.
Had Odnodum first asked the priest what he thought should
be done, he would certainly have been told that tradition
must be upheld. That would have resulted in a confrontation.
By acting on his own he avoided the showdown. An after the
fact denouncement by the priest would have put him in a bad
light. Thus Odnodum triumphs in the game of political
strategy. Without having sacrificed his principles in the
least, he has outmaneuvered the professionals, and in so doing
he shows the real contempt which underlies the illusion of
respect. -

With Lanskoj, the governor, Odnodum is forced into a

103
different strategy. He can no longer avoid a confrontation.
Here he is interrogated directly and, as an honest man, he
responds openly. When asked whether he respected authorities,
he responded:

He ysamam... sa ro, uro owu newusu, anuww u npen
npecronom wpuaonymwu.... (III, 105) '

He went on to offer Lanskoj a direct challenge:

...a BB Ha necnrb pyoneu B mecwu murb nquurer....
(III, 106)

De5pite the challenge which would have been interpreted by
the priest or the mayor as a personal affront, Lanskoj
still saw fit to award Odnodum the Cross of St. Vladimir.
The difference in approach as well as the difference in
interpretation lies in the quality of the authority with
whom he is associating. The corrupt and career centered
priest and mayor were left unchallenged by Odnodum because
he intuitively sensed that by so doing he could neither win
nor even retain the status quo. Their perception of the
world was completely opposed to his. Lanskoj, however,
basically shared the outlook of Odnodum within tolerable
limits.

Odnodum's association with those under his authority
was similar to that of a child and an authoritarian father.

A waos caM xonur no ropony nweM, xonur onuw

woubm u mano-nomany Besne cran uyscrsosarb

ero noopuu xosnucxuu nocmorp. (III, 84)
Furthermore, Leskov needed to maintain the comic aspects of
Odnodum in order to retain a successful flat hero. The

idiosyncracies of his character which caused that humorous

104
effect were mostly manifested in his relationships with those
below him. A clear example of this is the entire scene of
the preparation for Lanskoj's visit. The result is a strained
association with the SoligaliE townspeople. When Lanskoj
asked them about Odnodum, they responded with positive
comments, but they indicate that they still do not understand
him.

...npocro Bcerna "rawou". (III, 102)

This lack of understanding does not foster an efficient

ideal relationship with the result that Odnodum's effectiveness
as a model is directed toward the reader and not his own
people. This, of course, is yet another example of Leskov's
universal intention of which we have seen numerous examples
during this study.

Most of the other heroes in this group are not in such
direct contact with both those in positions of greater
authority and those in a position of subordinate. In Pigmej
the story centers around the hero and the Frenchman with
no other significant interaction. Yet it can be seen from
Pigmej's reactions to his situation that he has always
unquestioningly obeyed the orders of those in authority over
him. This is shown by his pangs of conscience after
becoming enmeshed in the affair with the Frenchman.

Tyr n oparen, so Bcem Buwosar, noromy, wro n usmewwuw:

n s rawoe spemw smemusame B neno wyna mwe conceM u

woca cowarb we cnenyer3... H, Booopasure ceoe, a,

neucrsurenbwo, s ro spemn raw uyscrsosan, uro sro Gory

yronwo cosepmurb ro, uro n nenam. (III, 114)

All four of the heroes in Kadetskij monastyr' refused

 

 

 

 

105
to be intimidated by authority when it was contrary to their
. . . . V

beliefs. When Nikolaj PaV10V1C appeared at the corps to
reprimand Perskij for allowing the cadets to feed the rioters
who had made their way across the ice on the Neva to the
corps area, Perskij calmly retorted:

Owu raw Bocnuraww, same Benuuecrso. nparbcn c

wenpuareneM, wo nocne nooenw npuspesarb pawewwx

wax cwoux. (III, 132)
And one year later, immediately after Demidov's installation
as director of all cadet corps, Perskij lectured him because
of his random and unjust plan to punish certain cadets as
examples to the others.

HaM ssepunu ux ponurenu c uerupexnerwero Bospacra,

wax BaM ussecrwo. Cnenonarenbwo, ecnu owu nypww,

ro s srom MH Buwosarw. Hro me MU cxameM ponurennM.

To, qro mu nosocnurwsanu ux nereu no roro, uro wx

npumnocs cnarb B nonwu wwxwumu quwaMu? He nywme

nu npenynpenurb ponureneu, qrooa owu Bswnw ux oes

suww B ywrep-opunepu? (III, 132)
But when the cause is obviously lost and Demidov announces
that the plan will be carried out, Perskij recognizes his
authority and acquiesces:

A! B rawOM cnyuae we nnn uero Guno coouparb cower....

Bu 6w ussonunu raw cwasarb cwauana, u qro npuwasawo,

ro nonmwo ours ucnonwewo. (III, 132)
The sarcasm of this remark is even less thinly veiled than
those made by Odnodum to the mayor and the priest.

Both Bobrov and Zelenskij willingly broke rules for
the cause of the students. Bobrov felt sorry for those who
were being punished and were on a bread and water diet. He

would see to it that they got one good meal a day. Zelenskij,

after Demidov's reforms had essentially curtailed learning,

106
countered the trend by falsely signing in students as sick
in order that he could personally see to it that they learned
a few things. Finally, the archimandrite bluntly reprimanded
the students for having responded to Demidov's greeting
in church, and in so doing was also reprimanding Demidov for
having initiated the greeting. This cost the archimandrite
his position.

With those for whom they were responsible, the cadets,
the four teachers maintained the highest respect. The lofty
esteem in which Perskij was held by the cadets has already
been cited. Their love for Bobrov was exemplified in the
way they returned to see him whenever they were near. Both
Zelenskij and the archimandrite were shown similar loyalties.

The case of Samburskij in Russkij demokrat v Pol'se is

 

only slightly different. He showed no evidence of open
animosity with his superiors, but on the contrary related
very well with them. However, when his plan for achieving

a permanent peace was rejected on the grounds of economic
considerations, he could not accept the decision and left the
service. His lead was followed by the entire trio from

v . . . v . V. v
Inzenery-bessrebreniki. Brjancaninov and Cixacev escaped

 

into the monastery despite enjoying an exceptionally good
relationship with the Emperor. The third member, Nikolaj
Fermor, sought temporary respite outside of civil service
only to find the same lack of concern for honesty there.

With the exception of his excellent rapport with the Emperor,

his relationship to his superiors was poor. The reason for

107
this is that he did not passively allow dishonesty in his
superiors as did Odnodum. Odnodum let his feelings be known
in his notebook. That provided him with an outlet. Further-
more, he was not as impulsive as Fermor and derived his
satisfaction from the knowledge that the ultimate victory
would be his. Fermor wore his feelings on the outside. He
attacked his adversaries in their own camp, thus assuring
failure. Had Odnodum openly challenged his adversaries, he
too would probably have met with a similar fate. Instead he
used a finesse which, combined with its measure of success,
allowed him to retain his equilibrium.

Golovan was really the only one of the ideal heroes of
this period to have had almost no relationship with an
authority. He was self employed and self sufficient. He
did, however, have the most extensive association with peers
and had an understood relationship with church authorities
in a manner paralleling that of Odnodum. Just as Odnodum's
faith was suspect because of the things which he did on
his own, so too was Golovan's. He spent time with Anton
the Coppersmith looking at the stars. He was also observed
giving milk to a Jewish family. Both of these actions were
considered ungodly by the townspeople. Just as had been
the case with Odnodum, Golovan in so doing was following
the dictates of his own conscience. There was no need for him
to first consult with a religious authority. Thus, he also
avoided the conflict which might have arisen.

Golovan's relationship with his peers is best shown

 

108
by his actions during the plague and, on a more personal
level, within his own family. He made the rounds of the
sick when none would undertake the chore because of the
danger of being infected. Although the reader is not allowed
to witness direct intercourse between Golovan and the sick,
the effect of this good deed was presented. Golovan was
placed on a pedestal above normal beings and rumors about

him spread amongst the people. He was even accorded

 

supernatural powers. Yet, never once was there any indication
given by Golovan that he recognized himself to be superior
to the others, or even an indication that he acknowledged
that they had placed him in a superior position. His
relationship with them was that of one concerned individual
interacting with another, giving totally of himself and
asking nothing in return. This contrasts markedly with
Ovcebyk's approach of requiring gifts from others if they
are needed. To Ovcebyk all things were communal. Golovan
asked for nothing from others but was not prevented by pride
from accepting, for example, a dinner when offered.

The same applied in his family situation. Golovan had
worked hard for the freedom that each of the members of his
family enjoyed. He also worked hard for the food which they
ate each day. Still, however, he readily accepted the effort
which the whole family put into helping him with his chores
and in weaving pieces of thread into warm blankets to sell.
The fifth woman in the family, "Golovan's sin," too was shown

respect and worked equally as hard as the others. The

109
entire situation was unique, though, in so far as nothing was
required of anyone; mutual respect and responsibility were
spontaneous. This is the same unspoken feeling which seemed
to underlie all Golovan's other associations as well.

The remaining two heroes, Levsa and Postnikov, while
sharing some of the general characteristics of the other
heroes, have a much less developed pattern of relationships.
In Postnikov's case, he even retreats to the background while
his fate is decided by the more important officials. Levsa,
however, did meet the Emperor through the urging of Platov,
and his manner was simple and direct. He had no fear,
because, like all the heroes in this group, he had done
nothing to warrant fear. When sent to England, this same
directness was also evident.

In general, we see two possible relationships between
the positive hero and authority. If the symbol of authority
is positive, the relationship is open and direct. If he
has predominantly negative characteristics, the relationship
is passive in that respect. The hero does not usually
challenge evil in discussion. He opposes it by example.
Where there is discussion of evil, it is not that of one
particular individual, but is broader, encompassing many
people. Then too, such a discussion could only occur
between two men depicted as good persons. Pairs meeting
this criterion are Odnodum and Lanskoj or Nikolaj Fermor
and the Emperor. If a situation is presented in which a

hero has an association with a person who has an equal

 

110
amount of authority, the relationship is one of mutual
give and take. Both willingly give and neither would ever
take advantage of the other's goodness. Finally, if the
hero represents more authority than those with whom he is
relating, as in the cases of the Cadet Corps staff and its
students, there is a genuine concern for the well-being of
the subordinate. Every attempt is made to show by example,
if not through direct teaching, how a person should conduct
himself.

There remain only points of detail regarding recurrent
characteristics of the heroes here depicted or the stories
in which they are depicted. One of these is the role of
women in the stories. It is obvious that no women were
selected to fill the lead role in any of these stories. As
a matter of fact, there are very few women depicted even in
secondary roles. The narrator alludes to the existence of
a wife in Pigmej, but she plays no role at all. In Odnodum
there are two women, his mother and his wife. Both of these
women are paragons of virtue, totally devoted to Odnodum.
His mother, widowed at a relatively young age, gives up
all prospects for future happiness in order to ensure a
good upbringing for young Aleksagka. She works for as long
as the need exists and then, when she becomes a burden she
simply dies. Odnodum's wife has the same virtues as his
mother and owes her inclusion into the story to the mayor
and the priest who insist that Odnodum take a wife in order

to make things a little more difficult for him financially.

111

None of the other positive heroes are married and in only
one other story do women play any role at all, that being
Nesmertel'nyj Golovan. The women in this story, three
sisters, a mother and Pavla are very similar to the women
in Odnodum° They function as family and wife, sharing and
mirroring the positive qualities of the primary hero. Women
in general are clearly subservient to men in Leskov's works
although equally or even more virtuous. One of the most
important criteria for judging the level of their virtue is
their ability to bear pain without complaint, a trait
particularly characteristic of Russian women.15

In summary, we have seen that most of the tales of
Leskov's Righteous Men are mere dramatizations of the
biblical Golden Rule. In each case the author's method is
to describe the ideal in such familiar terms that the reader
unconsciously compares himself to the ideal and loses. The
description is normally static deve10pmentally since the
Righteous Manluusalready attained moral perfection.

Membership into the family of Righteous Men is available
to all from all backgrounds and social levels if only he
fulfill a few basic requirements: He must be honesg direct,
just, and unassuming; he must be willing to sacrifice his
entire existence to principle, not selfishly, even should

his purpose be to attain eternal life, but selflessly, to

the exclusive benefit of his fellow man; he must practice

15See citation in Introduction, p. 10 in which Leskov
makes particular note of Hercen's reference to Russian women.

112
humility and adhere to Christian principles. The dogmas
of Orthodoxy or, for that matter, of any other sect will
not help since an honest milkman is far superior to a
dishonest bishop; he must be obedient to authority, but
not be intimidated by it; and he must Oppose evil by
example rather than confrontation.

Repetition of the theme, combined with Leskov's unique
use of isolationism brings about an effect of depersonal-
ization and lends an import far exceeding the narrow bounds
of the story itself. This peculiar form of stenciling
extends even to the physical attributes of the hero and his
attire.

As time goes on and new influences intervene, these
requirements are transformed into a new shape and take on
new substance. This new substance will be the subject of

the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER THREE

 

The Righteous Man in a Tolstovka

 

Ceuqac saxonun wo MHe Hasen MB. Bupywos u ussecrun

mewn, wro Ba wa cux nwnx Oynere B Moche. Ow u Bn.

Pp. Heprwow ouewb xenamr, urOOH morno ocymecrsurbcn

moe nanee, ropnqee xenawue Bunerbcn c Bamu s erM

cymecrsosawuu.
This note is the very first direct communication between
Leskov and Lev Nikolaevié Tolstoj, the man who occupied a
central position as Leskov's moral teacher until the day of
his death. The meeting between the two men took place on
April 20, 1887, two days after this letter was written.
Because of their physical get together, the date April, 1887
is conveniently utilized to mark the beginning of the accord
between Leskov and Tolstoj.2

At about this time Leskov began to turn out the bulk of
his moralistic legends and tales based on old Prologue themes.
It was also at about this time that he published the first
of a number of "Holiday Tales" displaying Tolstojesque
moralistic features. Tolstoj's influence on Leskov's works
after this time is unmistakable. However, no precise date

can be set without allowing for a transitional period.

William Edgerton marks the turning point in Leskov's

1Letter to Tolstoj, April 18, 1887 in Spbranie, X1, 344.

2B. Buxgtab, N. S. Leskov, p. 14.

 

113

114
relations to Tolstoj as being the year 1886, when Leskov
wrote several articles on Tolstoj.3 A. I. Faresov prefers

the year 1887, the time of the appearance of Skomorox

 

Pamfalon (Pamfalon the Clown), when Tolstoj and Leskov merged
"4

 

"on questions of righteous men and Christian understanding.
Unquestionably Leskov recognized even earlier the
intention of Tolstoj and sympathized with his direction. In

a letter to Suvorin in 1883 he states:
...rouwy ow Bunur Bepwym: xpucruawcrso ecrb yuewue
muswewwoe, a we orsneqewwoe.... Y wac BusawrusM, a
we xpucruawcrso, a Toncrou nporuB sroro Obercn c

nocrouwchOM, menan ywasarb B eBawren u we cronbxo
"HYTb w we6y", cwonbwo "CMch musww".

 

 

In an undated letter from the end of 1884 Leskov comments
even more emphatically:

51 111061110 K nouuraro STOPO nucarenw H CJ'IGXY 3a 9P0
IleJIOM crpacrwo.6

Andrej Leskov notes that one of the indications of his
father's respect for Tolstoj appeared already in 1869 when
he wrote both an article and a feuilleton on him.7
In a conversation with Faresov in his later years, Leskov
remembered the words of those who had accused him Of mere

imitation of his teacher. His remarks attest to his

earlier interest:

3Edgerton, p. 400.
4Faresov, p. 104.

5Letter to Suvorin, October 9, 1883 in Sobranie, X1, 287.

 

6Letter to Suvorin, 1884 in Sobranie, x1, 301.

 

7Andrej Leskov, p. 595.

115

Posopur, w emy nonpamam. Hucwonbwol Korna nucan
Toncrou "Awwy Kapewuwy", u yme Own Onusox x romy,
wro renepb rOBOpm. H yme wonan ry quy, woropym
cran u Hes Huwonaesuu wonarb. HO ronbxo y Hero
cser upqe, u a nomen sa qu co caoeu nnomwou.

Tolstoj himself commented on the similarities between
their directions in a conversation after Leskov's death.

Ero npusnsawwocrb wo mwe Ouna rporarenbwa u BupamanaCb
owa BO Bcem, qro no menu wacanocp. HO worna rOBOpur,
uro HechB cnenou MOu nocnenOBarenb, rO sro wesepwo:
ow nocnenosarenb, no we cnenou.... flecwos MOu
nocnenOBarenb, no we us nonpaxawun. Ow naswo men B
TOM me wanpasnewuu B waxOM renepb u w uny. Mm
Bcrperunucw u mewn rporaer ero cornacue co BCBMK

moumu Bsrnnnamu.

In this dissertation as well we observe Tolstojesque

characteristics as far back as 1875 in Na kraju sveta.

 

The significance of all this evidence is twofold.
First of all, it shows that the 1887 date of accord between
Tolstoj and Leskov does not denote a distinct change of
direction. It is not plausible to view the final eight
years of Leskov's life as an independent period, even though
they contain some altogether unique elements. Secondly, it
justifies an overlapping period when there were stories
written for the cycle of the Righteous Man and stories written
for the purposes discussed in this final chapter.

These latter stories belong primarily to the two
aforementioned cycles, Legends and Holiday Tales. Leskov
himself characterized his Holiday Tales.

Or caurowworo paccxasa wenpemewwo rpeOyercw, wroOu

8Faresov, pp. 307-308.
91bid., pp. 70-71.

116

ow Own npuypouew w coOwrunM csnrowworo Beqepa--Or
pomnecha no xpemewun, erOw ow Own cxonbwo-quynb
¢awracruqew, umen waxym-quynb MOpanb, XOTb Bpone
onposepmewun Bpenworo npenpaccynxa u, waxoweu,
--wroOw ow oxawwusaercw wenpemewwo Beceno.

The stories I have selected for discussion from this group

are Zver' (The Beast), Pugalo (The Scarecrow), Figura (Figura)

 

 

 

 

and PustOpljasy (The People of PustOpljasov). The first two

 

 

stories were written before the time of Leskov's first
meeting with Tolstoj and the last two were written after
the meeting.

Constancy of example as the sole means to heighten a
person's moral consciousness as illustrated in the stories
of the Righteous Men and their precursors, begins to break
down during Leskov's final period. The shift is toward a
combination of example and ministration, and represents a
significant change in Leskov's approach. Amongst the
Precursors of the Righteous Men example became an increasingly

important factor, culminating in Na kraju sveta which

 

employed example directly as part of the theme. The cathedral
folk while involved with the ministry by profession, were
nonetheless primarily concerned with the example they
projected. Ovcebyk stands as the lone example of a positive
hero in Leskov's first period who attempted to mould others'
attitudes by direct ministry. His miserable failure ended
with suicide. Preaching was unsuccessful.

In like manner Samburskij, a successful example to

10Grossman, p. 191.

 

117
his colleagues, was unsuccessful when he tried to sell his
ideas to the Emperor. Brjanganinov and Cixagev were
successful in their church affairs as long as they operated
within the spiritual world. In secular matters their
missionary zeal was ineffective. Levga likewise shared the
same fate. He received loud acclaim as an example of a
talented and good man. However, when he returned to Russia
to pass on the advice he considered so crucial, his head
was broken and he died. Nikolaj Fermor's fate is a repeat
of Ovcebyk's. He could not escape into church work as had
Brjanganinov and Civaev. He continued his efforts at
reform in his secular capacity. He drowned himself.

All in all, the acceptance of preaching as a method
of influencing people to do or to be good represents an
important change in Leskov's strategy. His movement away
from static descriptions in his later writings brings him
more in line with the method employed by Dostoevskij in
his depiction of righteous men. In light of the common
interests in depicting righteous men shared by Dostoevskij,
Turgenev and Leskov, I shall digress here briefly to discuss
Leskov's relationship to each.

The complex relationship between Leskov and Dostoevskij
has not been adequately treated by scholars to the present
day. Seldom did one of these writers say a good word about
the other. Vinogradov suggests that Leskov's difficulties

in receiving payment for his story Ledi Makbet mcenskogo

 

uezda (Lady Macbeth of the Mcensk District) which was

 

118

\
published by Dostoevskij in Epoxa (The Epoch) may have

 

 

precipitated the ill feelings between them.11 Judging from
Leskov's inability to forget the occasions upon which he
was wronged, Vinogradov is probably correct in his assessment.
There was far more common ground between Dostoevskij
and Leskov than either man would ever admit. Both were
religious men interested in presenting a positive hero who
embodied religious principles as he understood them.
Dostoevskij's religion, however, was inextricably bound to
the tenets of Russian Orthodoxy while Leskov's in character-
istic fashion opposed the dogmatism of any one given sect.
Leskov would not even accept Dostoevskij's knowledge of
religious matters as thorough. Recounting the discussions
between Dostoevskij and Julia Denisovna Zaseckaja, a convert
from Orthodoxy to Lutheranism, Leskov wrote the following:
Cnopw y wux Owaanu mapwue u oxecrouewwwe, nocroescwuu
wu pasy we waonun nOOenureneM. B erO OoeBOM apcewane
weMwowa wenocrasano Opyxun. Baceuxan npesocxonwo
swana OuOnum, u eu Ownu swawomw mworue nywmue
OuOneucwue uccnenosawua awrnuucxux u wemenwux reonoros.
nocroescwuu we swan enumewwoe nucawue nanewo we B
rawou crenewu, a uccnenosawunmu ero npeweOperan w
B penuruoswwx Oecenax OOwapyquan Oonee crpacrwocru,
qu csenymwocru.
Just as Dostoevskij's religion was centered in dogma,

so also were his heroes drawn from a theoretical position

instead of a life situation as were Leskov's. He dealt in

11 . .. . .
V. Vinogradov "Dostoevskij i Leskov " Russkaja
literatura, No. 1 (1961), p. 64. ,

 

$2N. S. Leskov, "O kufel'nom mugike i prog.;'Novosti

i birzeva'a azeta, No. 161 (June 24, 1886) as reprinted in
Sobranie, XI, 148.

119
abstractions on a plane Leskov refused to recognize as valid.
For Leskov nothing could substitute for living experience
and its expression.
... wer ... repnewuw CHOCHTh B monuawuu rO, wro nonuac
roponar numymue nmnu, ornwnwsawmue Pycs we c ussoswuqbero
"nepenxa"... a "neerM nern", us Barowa swcrpewworo
noesna.
It is curious that Leskov would not even grant Dostoevskij
the right to depict his personages based on his own personal
preference or natural ability when he, himself, recognized
that his own inability to fantasize was the reason he drew
his figures from life.
Y mewn eCTb waOnmnarenbwocrb u, mower 6HTb, ecrb
wexoropan cnocoOwocrb awanusuposarb wyBcha u
nOOymnewuw, wo y mewn mano mawrasuu. H BwnyMwBam
raneno u rpynwo, u noromy a Bcerna wymnancn a
nuswx nuuax, woropwe mornu mean sauwrepecosarb
csouM nyxoswwM conepmawueM.14
Vinogradov sees Dostoevskij and Leskov as approaching

15 Leskov's realism is

reality on two different levels.
bytovoj, i.e., the ground level reality of everyday life.
Dostoevskij on the other hand is a realist in the higher
sense of the word. His realism is ideological and psychological.

This opinion is shared by Professor Stoljarova who sees Leskov's

heroes representing feelings rather than ideas.16 She adds

13Letter to Suvorin, September 29, 1886 in Sobranie, xx, 320.

 

14Leskov, "Avtorskoe priznanie," Varsavskij_dnevnik,
No. 226 (1884) as reprinted in Russkie pisateli o literaturnom
trude, ed. B. Mejlax (Leningrad, 1955), III, 208.

 

 

15Vinogradov, p. 67.

16I. V. Stoljarova, "Neizvestnoe literaturnoe obozrenie
N. S. Leskova," U enye zapiski Leningradskogo gosudarstvennogg
universiteta, No. 339 (1968), p. 229.

 

120
the important distinction between Leskov's Optimistic
conception of the hero and Dostoevskij's pessimistic view

17 This ties in directly with Leskov's view that

of him.
literature be "serviceable," i.e., that it emphasize the
good which exists in a person, even if the person is
predominantly evil.

Dostoevskij's use of abstractions and generalities
frequently led him into broad discrepancies between theory
and practice. In particular one can point to the case of
Alesa Karamazov. Dostoevskij's description of Alega could
almost be taken verbatim to apply to Leskov's Righteous Man
as he was described in the preceding chapter. It is just
one single phrase in Dostoevskij's description which,
differentiates the two.

...Ow Own mwoma orqacru yxe wamero nocnenwero

spemewu, ro eCTb, uecrwo no npupone csoeu, rpeOymmuu

npasnw, umymuu ee u sepymmuu a wee, a ysepoaas,
rpeOymmuu wemennewworo ywacrun B wen Bcem cunom

nymu csoeu, rpeOymmuu cwoporo nonsura, c wenpemewwwm

menawueM xorw Ow BceM noxeprsosars nnn sroro nonsura,

name cmeprbm.
V . .
Alesa is described here as seeking to implement truth.
Leskov's Righteous Men do not seek truth, for they have

already found it at the time they are being described. The

search is precisely the element which Leskov adds to his

171bid.

18See letter to Buslaev, June 1, 1877 in Sobranie, X,-451.

19F. M. Dostoevskij, Sobranie soginenij v desjati tomax
(Moscow, 1958), IX, 36.

121
stories during his final period when he fell under Tolstoj's
moral influence and it is for this reason that so many
similarities between Leskov and Dostoevskij can be perceived
in Leskov's later works.

Despite the fact that Alega's description as given above
accurately describes Leskov's heroes, it is by no means
similar to a description Leskov would give. Leskov's heroes'
actions result in their being defined in such a manner. Here
Dostoevskij stateshis heroes' philOSOphy and then goes on
to depict his actions within that framework. Unfortunately,
the hero's exposition does not always fulfill the promise of
the original description. M. A. AntonoviE finds that most
of Alesa's efforts to help others seem to have centered on
his scurrying about on missions to aid his brothers in their
love affairs.20 Antonoviz has slightly exaggerated his
point, of course, but it is true that the character and
determination promised in theory by Dostoevskij are simply
not fulfilled in practice. Alesa was never placed into a
situation which would require the ultimate sacrifice--his
life. Leskov's heroes as we have seen were frequently
placed in that position, and they were always prepared to
make the sacrifice.

We can also observe that Alesa's purpose for existing

is different from that of the Righteous Men. At one point

20M. A. Antonovig, "Mistiko-asketigeskij roman," Novoe
obozrenie, NO. 3 (1881) as reprinte in Literaturno-
Kritigeskie stat'i, ed. G. E. Tamarcenko (Moscow, 1963),
p. 40 .

 

122
he states:

Xowy murb nnn Oeccmeprun, a nonosuwworo womnpomucca
we npuwumam.21

Such a purpose would be construed by Leskov's positive heroes
from all periods as self centered and wrong. Their purpose
is to serve others. As can be seen by Ovcebyk, self
concern is wholly unacceptable.

Father Zosima reflects the difference between Leskov's
concept of the ideal and Dostoevskij's even more lucidly.
Zosima spent his life sheltered from society and real life
in a monastery. In order for him to be successful as a
righteous man, he had to remain within his own pure
environment. AntonoviE astutely notes:

BooOme Onarorsopewuw senuxoro crapna, panO wax u

ero noywewuu, umenu uucro nyxoswwu, reoperuwecwuu,

raw cwasarb nnarowuwecwuu xapaxrep; crapen Own,

uro waswsaercn, cosepnarenbwwu mwcruqecxuu acwer.

O nearenwaM we, npawruwechM acwerusme 53 O. Bocuma,

wu ero aBrop we umemr maneumero nownrun.

Zosima's isolation from reality is paralleled by

. v . . . . . . . .
Prince Myskin's inability to operate Within soc1ety 1n

Idiot (The Idiot). Like Alesa, Myskin also follows Zosima's

 

 

advice to "seek happiness in woe." Although Leskov like
Dostoevskij required a great deal of suffering from his
Righteous Man, it was never a prerequisite for salvation.
The pain experienced by Leskov's heroes was rather an
illustration of their determination to do good and a living

example of their willingness to make the sacrifice which

v
21Dostoevskij, Sobranie socinenij, IX, 36.

 

22Antonoviz, "Mistiko-asketigeskij roman," p. 409.

r-uFilw..mnh’swE Jon .. 1H9!!!“
. ‘ . . . ~ , I .1.-
0| 8
.. .
I . ... .‘IH 1 h
V - ‘1‘ i

.

 

123
Dostoevskij only required in principle.

In summary, the primary difference between Dostoevskij's
righteous man and Leskov's is the fact that Leskov's heroes
live and breathe, are subject to human limitations and
operate within rational limits of credibility. They are
soft-spoken and not susceptible to long introspective
monologues. Leskov does not relate to his Righteous Men
"with the hysterical tears of Dostoevskij," as Gor'kij put
it.23 In contrast to Leskov's heroes, Dostoevskij's righteous
men need only be theoretically credible. Once their
theoretical position is established, they are allowed to
stray beyond those bounds. Functioning from a given
theoretical position, Dostoevskij's method of portrayal is
deductive.24 ~Leskov, working in the opposite direction
employs the inductive method.

Leskov's relationship with Ivan Turgenev was not
complicated by the personal ill feelings which interfered
with his association with Dostoevskij. Turgenev had
undergone a number of experiences which paralleled those of
Leskov. His relationship with Dostoevskij was poor and was

complicated by Dostoevskij's financial problems as was

Leskov's.ZS In addition Turgenev's ideological position was

23M. Gor'kij, Istorija russkoj literatury (Moscow, 1939),
p. 275.

 

24F. G. Pustovojt, "K voprosu o razlignyx xudogestvennyx
metodax Turgeneva i Dostoevskogo," Voprosy russkoj literatury,
vyp. 1(23) (1973), p. 14.

 

25See Konstantin Mochulsky, Dostoevsky, trans. Michael
A. Minihan (Princeton, 1961), pp. 326-29.

 

124

challenged by the radicals, in his case by Cernysevskij.

This led to his break with the radical journal Sovremennik

 

(The Contemporary) and later association with Katkov.26

 

Leskov could feel a sense of comradeship with a person
sharing these experiences.

This by no means constituted the entire basis of Leskov's
attraction to Turgenev. From the very beginning he was
delighted by Turgenev's writings.

...worna mwe npusenocs Bnepswe npowecrb Banucwu

oxorwuwa H. C. Typrewesa, 3 secs sanpoxan or npasnw
npencrasnewun u cpasy nowwn: wro wastaercw ucwyccrsom.

27
Setting off later on his own literary career, Leskov
immediately placed himself on the side of Turgenev as a
proponent of the Don Quixote types in the debate that arose

from the appearance of Turgenev's Gamlet i Don-Kixot

 

(Hamlet and Don Quixote). Stoljarova accurately notes that

 

Ovcebyk was the first of an entire series of creations,
including many of the tales of the Righteous Men, which to
varying degrees reflected the characteristics of Cervantes'
hero.28 Stoljarova points out in another article that there
is nonetheless an important difference in the thrust of the
Don Quixote types as depicted by the two writers.29 In the

context of Turgenev's other works written at the time of the

26See S. M. Petrov, I. S. Turgenev (Moscow, 1961), p. 354.

 

27Andrej Leskov, p. 12.

28Stoljarova, "Russkie Donkixoty v tvorEestve N. S.
Leskova," p. 78.

29Stoljarova, "Gamlet i Don Kixot," pp. 122-23.

125
appearance of Gamlet i Don Kixot, the strengths of Turgenev's
heroes were directed toward the revolutionary struggle,
whereas even Leskov's political heroes become involved to a
much lesser degree. In contrast they register a mere social

protest. It was Turgenev's Nakanune (On the Eve) which

 

 

appeared at the same time as Gamlet i Don Kixot and

 

Stoljarova's point is valid. Ovcebyk did little more than
mouth the word "revolution." His campaign never reached the
prOportions of anythingwhich vaguely resembled a serious
social uprising. It is equally as significant that Leskov
soon abandoned his political Don Quixote and moved instead
in the direction of ascetic-humanitarianism. This was the
aspect of Turgenev which he admired most. His one word post
mortem descriptions of Dostoevskij and Turgenev clearly
illustrate the essence of his differing attitudes toward the
two men. "Dostoevskij," he wrote, "was an Orthodoxist;

n30

Turgenev a humanitarian.

With Leskov's critical attitude toward institutions

both secular and religious clearly in mind, it is not
difficult to interpret his intent in calling Dostoevskij an
Orthodoxist. On the other hand, his recollection of Turgenev
as a humanitarian brings the gentleness of Turgenev's writings

. . V. . . . . ‘
into focus. His Zivye mo§§i_(Liv1ng Relics) represent truth

 

in action, not merely professed truths. But whereas Lukerija

actually sought isolation from society in her altruistic

30N. S. Leskov, "O kufel'nom mugike i proE.," in
Sobranie, XI, 156.

126

concern for others, Leskov's heroes operate within society.
We have observed elements of isolationism in Leskov's heroes
to be sure, but they are utilized in a peculiar way as a
device of depersonalization to broaden the impact area of
the story.

One final indication of the objectivity of Leskov's
relationship to Turgenev appears in an article occasioned by

the appearance of Turgenev's'Strannaja istorija (A Strange

 

S3211) in German.31 Whereas a number of people were bitterly
critical of Turgenev for writing a story in a foreign
language for a foreign journal, Leskov staunchly defended his
right to do so. When it came to a discussion of the story
itself, however, Leskov had nothing positive to say. _He
readily recognized that Turgenev's long lapses from his
hOmeland were causing him insuperable difficulties in
portraying contemporary realities.

Leskov's entire relationship with Turgenev is the
most normal of any he had with the contemporary major writers.
It falls midway between the extremes of his distrustful
relationship with Dostoevskij and the fawning, almost
worshipful nature of his relationship with Tolstoj. Still,
no matter what the relationship, each man in his own way
strongly influenced Leskov's concept of the ideal. Leskov's

Righteous Men discussed in the preceding chapter reflect

31N. S. Leskov, "Russkie obscestvennye zametki,"
Birzevye vedomosti, No. 340 (February 14,1869) as reprinted
in SObranie, X, 85- 92.

 

 

127
Turgenev's humanitarianism most clearly, while his Righteous

Man in a Tolstovka discussed in this chapter bears the

 

distinct imprint of Dostoevskij.

After the representatives of the Holiday Tales mentioned
above, this chapter will discuss Leskov's Legends, based on
the Prologue themes. Like the Holiday Tales, they were
almost all written in the late 1880's and early 1890's.
Leskov retained the tendentious nature of the original
story, however he embellished the plots, changed them,
combined two or more, and took other such liberties with them.
On more than one occasion he was condemned because of his
changes. In 1892 he wrote to Suvorin thanking him for his
support against some of his critics. Paraphrasing Suvorin's
argument on his behalf, Leskov states:

...rema nponora we oOasarenbwa w rowwomy ee

socnpoussenewum. Tema wax rema, a n mory us wee

nenarb, uro waxomy Bosmowwwm. Hwawe wa wro Ow ee

u nepenenwsarb, a wano Ow Oparb ee npocro u

nepenewarwsarb.... H meno Ow npocro u rnyno,

xax caM llponor.32

The Legends I have chosen are Skomorox Pamfalon (Pamfalon

the Clown), Prekrasnaja Aza (Fair Aza), Sovestnyj Danila

 

 

 

 

(Conscientious Danila), and AskalOnskij zlodej(The Villain

 

of Askalon). I shall discuss them in the same manner as I

 

have discussed the heroes of the preceding chapters,

comparing them with each other while pointing out similarities
and dissimilarities with the positive heroes mentioned earlier.

The heroes in these stories are consistent with the

32Letter to Suvorin, November 9, 1892 in Sobranie, XI, 517.

 

128
general shift in the last few years of Leskov's life to
having his heroes somehow interact with or react to
organized religion. In April, 1886 Leskov wrote an article
defending Tolstoj against those who were attacking him
"for the harmful direction observed in his simple folk

tales."33 The article, entitled Lugsij bogomolec, included

 

a story of Leskov's own creation but on a Prologue theme.

The story was called Povest' o bogougodnom drovokole. The

 

 

story is about a simple woodcutter who spent his entire

life scratching out a living by cutting brush and selling it
in the market for only enough money to buy bread for the
following day. Whenever he was ill or the weather was too
bad for him to work, he would simply go hungry. Since he
worked all the time, he had not time to engage in any
external expressions of religious devotion. During that
time the area suffered from a severe drought. Despite the
prayers of the most devout bishop, no rains came. Finally,
a voice from heaven was heard saying that the prayer of the
first man who approached the city gate would be acceptable to
God. That man happened to be the woodcutter.

This is Leskov's tale written in the moralistic vein of
TolstOj. In his remarks following the story, Leskov comments:
Ha mou swyc, ow owewb Onarowecrua, rpanuosew, npocr

u ynoOew nnw nepenawu ero B Oennerpwwecwou Oopme.

UPHTOM OH orsewaer BwycaM npocrowaponworo wurarenn
H HOY‘IEET €170 TpYJIOJIIOfiHIO, repnewulo H GEBPOHOTHOCTH"-

33N. S. Leskov, "Lugsij bogomolec," in Sobranie, XI,

 

100.

129
ace, urO nnn Oenworo rpymewuxa wymwo u noneswo.34
He also enumerates the hero's basic traits:
...sro, oweaunwo, Own wenoaex we ropnoro, a cmupworo
xpucruawcworo nyxa, uenoaex, woropwu caom aaxwocra
craaun wu ao wro, a ucxan ronawo nonasw wapony u nnw
roro wumano we crecwnncu acewaponwo nocraaura ceOw
wume npoaowona. Tawaa ucwpewwocra u npocrora acerna
wpaaurcw nmnnM xpucruawcxoro wacrpoewua...35
This description exemplifies the increasing value Leskov
placed on the characterization of the heroes' internal
virtues as Opposed to the physical descriptions given before

of earlier heroes. This trend is likewise evident in the

first story I shall discuss in this chapter, Tomlenie duxa

 

(The Anguish of Spirit). 'Tomlenie duxa belongs to neither

 

 

the cycle of Holiday Tales nor Legends, but its similarity
to both the stories of the Righteous Men discussed in the
preceding chapter and the Holiday Tales which will be
discussed directly, provides a smooth transition from one
group to the next. The physical description of its hero,
Ivan Jakovlevié, is given in two words--"long" and "lean."
To this Leskov adds that he resembled a goat and was
therefore called by that nickname, Koza (Goat).

The use of the term "Koza" as a nickname has much more
significance than a nickname such as Odnodum (Singlethought)
or Ovcebyk (Musk ox). Those nicknames are purely descriptive.

While they project a somewhat grotesque image of the hero,

it is that very feature which provides the means by which

34Ibid., p. 108.
351bid., p. 109.

130
the reader can remember the hero and the content of the
tale. "I like a title that is lively and in itself suggests
the content of the story," Leskov reported.36
In another context he discussed with Tolstoj the
selection of the title for one of his stories.
Hro me wacaercn sarnaauw, TO Mw ero OOnymwaanu arpoeM
u ocrawoaunuca wa npennoxewwOM mwom wasaawuu £9 umewu,
rO ecra, "epawcyasa". Bro caMoe ynOOwoe, npocroe, '
wparwoe, cwpomwoe u "npunuwwoe." Kpome rorO no sromy
umewu nerwo Oyner u acnomuwarb npousaenewue.é
Based on the brevity and simplicity of most of Leskov's
titles, it is reasonable to assume that he used the same
criteria in selecting them.

The term "Koza" is shrouded in symbolic suggestion.

One need think only of the goat costumes worn by the skomoroxi

 

or of the sacrifice of a goat and the goatskinned dancers
at the Dionysiac festivals. It simply cannot be a neutral
appellation for someone who is "long" and "lean."

As is suggested by the nickname, Koza is held in low
esteem by those around him. One man when asked why he didn't
like Koza responded, "Because he is a fool and a babbler
(XVI, 150). Such strong evidence of negative feelings toward
a positive hero are very rare in Leskov's works. Many of
his heroes have been called foolish (Ovcebyk, Axilla, Odnodum
etc.), but overtly or covertly they were still beloved by
those with whom they dealt.

The reason for the negative attitude against Koza is

36Gebel', p. 101

37Letter to Tolstoj, January 12, 1891 in Sobranie, x1, 476.

 

131
because of his affliction with"fantasies." He took work
teaching German to the children of a rich family. Since he
had been previously involved with these as yet undefined
fantasies, the condition under which he retained his position
was that he cease fantisizing. This condition is very
similar to the one under which Ovcebyk was Operating when
given work on the Sviridov estate. Koza was un updated
Ovcebyk, removed from the political sphere. For three
months he worked without incident. Then one day the wife of
the governor and their son came to visit. The son picked
the plums from a rare plum tree which, when discovered,
caused the owner to go into a state of fury. The boys who
had seen the incident took oaths that they would not divulge
who had picked the plums. As a result, the gardener's son
was accused and flogged. Two of the children then went to
Koza, telling him what had happened and seeking his advice.
Koza was stunned. First of all, he admonished the boys for
having taken oaths. He explained to them that once having
taken an oath, a person is no longer free to tell the truth.
He then went directly to the governor's wife and told her
what her son had done. Koza was immediately dismissed from
his pOsition on the grounds that he was a madman. As he
prepared himself to leave, the children gathered to seek
his forgiveness. Leskov used this Opportunity to have Koza
deliver a sermon. "Fear no one," preached Koza. "Do not
lie to anyone.... Be righteous always, in all situations

of life." (XVI, 152)

132

Koza then declared war on the elements of evil in the
world: "...our battle is not with flesh and blood, but
with the darkness of the age, --with the spirits of evil
living on earth." (XVI, 152) The battleground extends over
the entire planet wherever evil exists. It is not without
design that Leskov has chosen Koza, a German, for his hero.
Volynskij correctly points out that Leskov "gave his hero
certain foreign qualities as if to make his verbal revolt a
standard of beauty for all mankind."38

We have spent some time previously showing various
ways in which Leskov would suggest the universality of his
hero. There is an actual progression toward this unrestricted
impact of his heroes. The first hero, Ovcebyk, was very
restricted. His existence was due to a political issue of

the day. In Kiriak of Na kraju sveta, however, Leskov moved

 

more closely to human oriented questions of right and wrong.
Kiriak did not believe it right that Christianity be forced
upon someone who in the first place did not understand it,
and in the second place for whom the title "Christian"
would only cause anguish. Nonetheless, Leskov was dealing
specifically with an actual situation which existed in
Siberia, so the scope remained limited.

In the Righteous Men we observed Leskov's unique methods
of achieving universality. However, it has never been

suggested that in place of "Levsa" one should read "mankind,"

38Volynskij, p. 68.

133

only "russkijgnarod."39 Leskov had kept his heroes so much

 

a part of the motherland that he was considered a Slavophile
by some.40 But here, finally, Koza's sermon clearly places
him into the universal arena.

It is Koza's offensive which produces enemies within the
forces of evil. Odnodum had avoided direct Showdowns.
Koza seeks them out. The immediate result of his attack
is that he is expelled from his position. Whereas externally

expulsion hardly appears to be a progressive indicator, Koza

39See above, Chapter Two, p. 96.

40On May 11, 1890, Leskov responding to a request from
the poet Peter Vejnberg for material of a Slavophile nature,
stated that he did not sympathize with their cause. This
statement is misleading in that Leskov had shown an inclination
toward the Slavophiles at one time and Vejnberg was approaching
him with a knowledge of that fact. Vejnberg was one of the
co-founders of the weekly Vek to which Leskov had contributed
‘already in 1861. He was aT§5 acquainted with Sergej Jur'ev,
the editor and publisher of the Slavophile ”ournalvBeseda, to
whom Leskov had made overtures about publishing Bozedomy. So
anxious was Leskov to gain Jur'ev's favor, that he character-
ized himself as a lifelong Slav0phile sympathizer. While there
is an element of truth in the statement, it is grossly exag-
gerated and is more indicative of the extremes to which he
would go in order to find a journal which would publish him
after Pisarev's attack. In light of the circumstances, the
exaggeration is understandable, if not a bit hypocritical.
Since we have seen repeatedly how Leskov was unable to
idealize any one group by his very nature, we can assume that it
was in this context that he responded to Vejnberg's request.
Leskov also displayed strong Pan-Slavic tendencies
early in his career. He was particularly attracted by Polish
and Ukrainian literature and later by Czechoslovakian as
well. His efforts to find some accord between his Slavic
friends were frustrated because of distrust for and the
strong nationalistic feelings of many Poles. This subject
is treated at length by Edgerton,"Nikolaj Leskov: The
Intellectual Development of a Literary Nonconformist," pp.
178-200; and "Leskov and Russia's Slavic Brethern," American
Contributions to the Fourth Internagipnal Congress ofgi
Slavidists (MOscow, 1958), pp. 51774.

 

 

134
interprets it as evidence of success. To his way of thinking,
the battle itself educates and strengthens the agitator.
Furthermore, the lack of a reaction on the part of the forces
of evil would indicate the failure of the pursuer.

HO worna owu aac nacwamr u xaannr...aor...rorna...
umure wroOw cnac aac Oren aam’weOecwwu. (XVI, 154)

In his prayer to God, the thought is again repeated.

Ham Oren! ... Bnaronapm TeOn, uro Tw awoaa nan mwe

panocra Owrb usrwawwwm sa ucnonwewue canrou aonu

raoeu. (XVI, 155)

Then, having completed his sermon, Koza turned to leave. At
this point Leskov uses the device of illusion to recreate the
transfiguration of Christ and to merge his hero with Christ
himself. The scene is related by the narrator who is one of
the small children.

Ow ocrawoauncn u oOepwyncw, u nowasanoca waM, Oynro

ow anpyr cnenancn wawow-ro nPYrOu: awpoc wax-r0 u

paccaeruncn. Beponrwo, sro npoucxonuno orroro, wro

ow renepa crown wa xonme u ero ocaemano conwne. Ho

onwawo u rOnoc y wero roxe usmewuncn. Ow wax-r0

Oynro nun cnoaa no aosnyxy. (XVI, 155)

Increasingly Leskov has been clothing his heroes in
Christlike vestments. It is Koza the fool who seems actually
to personify Christ. His words suddenly carry new meaning
and new authority. His prayer, "Enlighten with reason and
compassion the eyes of those who pursue us," brings to mind
Christ's prayer on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do." His counsel to the children is
like Christ's to the disciples.

It is through the children that still one more

difference between Tomlenie duxa and the preceding stories

 

135
appears, because the teaching and preaching of Koza achieve
a visible positive effect on the children. In very few of
the earlier stories, were there any immediate changes visible
in the behaviour of those who associated with the positive

hero. We do see in Na kraju sveta that Kiriak manages to

 

bring about a change in the thinking of the bishop on one
specific issue. But Koza, on the other hand, appears to
have effected a complete takeover of the children's minds
and souls. He has brought them from the fringes of the
enemies' camp, the kingdom of darkness, into the kingdom
of light. It was not example alone that carried off the
coup. It was a strategically planned uprising engineered by
Koza. The uprising was followed by ministration not among
the illiterate heathen in distant lands, but, once again in
keeping with the gospel teachings, amongst the children.
"Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little
child, he shall in no wise enter therein)‘(Mark 10:15)
Sermonizing amongst children is a constituent element
in 2123;, the first of the Holiday Tales. Its significance
in 2131;, however, is considerably less than it was in

Tomlenie duxa, even though the situations are somewhat

 

parallel. One of the factors undoubtedly causing that

difference is the fact that Zver' was written seven years

earlier than Tomlenie duxa.41

 

41I am retreating here chronologically in order to
treat all members of a particular genre in succession. In
like manner, after completing the Holiday Tales, I shall

136
2131; contains a combination of elements from stories
and heroes preViously discussed. Its plot contains more
suspense than those of the Righteous Men. It is reminiscent

of Na kraju sveta in that respect. The hero, Xraposka,

 

however, resembles the Righteous Men to a great degree. He
is mild-mannered, obedient and talented. His physical
description is given and it follows the patterns already
established. This reminds us too that we are dealing not
with a contemporary of Koza, but with a contemporary of the
Righteous Men.

The setting is an estate resplendent with beautiful
scenery, domestic animals and hunters. Turgenev and Zapiski

oxotnika come immediately to mind. The story takes place

 

at the estate of Leskov's uncle when Leskov is only five
years old. It is described from his recollection of the
events. The situation in which a child interprets the scene
from his perspective is not new in Leskov. It was a child
who described the "transfiguration" of Koza in the preceding
story, and it was from a child's point of view that the
legend of Nesmertel'nyj Golovan was related.

The story begins with Leskov's recollection of the
apprehension which accompanied a trip to his unclewsestate.
His uncle supported an inflexible interpretation of the term
"masculinity." That interpretation disallowed any humane

sensitivities. The uncle is described in the following way:

retreat to take up Leskov's Legends. In only the present case
will it be apparent that we are dealing with an earlier hero.

137

Ow Own owewa Oorar, crap u mecrox. B xapawrepe y

wero npeoOnananu snoOwocra u weymonumocra, u ow oO

srou wumano we coxanen, a wanporua, name meronnn

srumu xawecraamu, worOpwe, no ero mwewum cnyxunu

Oynro Ow awpaxewueM myxecraewwou cunw u wenpexnowwou

raepnocru nyxa. (XVIII, 31)

When Leskov had been only three years old, his uncle had
locked him out on a balcony during a thunder storm in order
to rid him of the unmanly sense of fear. Compassion was
considered to be a weakness by his uncle.

His favorite pastime was hunting. He had numerous
hunting dogs and even had Special dogs for hunting bear. If
during a bear hunt a den of cubs was discovered, they were
taken home and kept in a large brick shed. There they were
tended by the young whipper-in, Ferapont, nicknamed XrapoSka.

v . . . .-
Xraposka's role parallels that of Kiriak in that he is the
force which precipitates change within a second person. The
second person in this case is Leskov's uncle. Whereas no
physical description of the uncle is given, XrapoSka is
described:

Xpanomwa Own cpenwero pocra, owewa noawuu, cunawwu

u cmenwu napewa ner naannaru nnru. Xpanow cwurancu

wpacaauem--ow Own Oen, pymnw, c wepwwmu wynpwmu w

c wepwwmu we Oonamumu rnasamu waawware. K romy me

ow Own weoOwwauwo cmen. (XVIII, 34)

This description is in complete accord with the pattern of
physical characteristics previously encountered. His physical
attributes match perfectly with the physical requirements

for the job he must do. The very existence, however, of

such a physical description is an indication that this story

was written early in comparison to the other stories we Shall

138
discuss here.

We have mentioned that one of the most characteristic
features of this period is the new emphasis on moralizing.
Moralizing is present already here in this story but in a
very rudimentary form. Still present in a dominant role
is the example set by the hero. Xrapogka loved the bear he
was tending, Sganarel', very deeply. Despite his injured
feelings, when the uncle demanded that XrapoSka actively
participate in destroying the animal, he did as he was told.
Just as Odnodum had discovered a loophole through which he
need not disobey authority but would still remain loyal to
his own principles, so too did XrapoSka, whose principles
were partially personified by Sganarel'. When the bear
unexpectedly crashed into the blind in which he was hidden,
XrapoSka could easily have killed him with his hunting knife.
However, he allowed the confusion of the moment to serve as
justification for actually saving the bear's life. When
a shot rang out from the second "executioner's" gun, it was
Xrapogka's arm that was hit, not the bear.

That evening as all the children at the estate, accompanied
by the priest, stood discussing the events of the day, the
uncle entered the room. Trying to break the embarrassed
silence caused by the uncle's entrance, the priest began
to teach the children the meaning of the song "Christ is
Born." He spoke of love, of forgiveness, and of one's duty
to comfort both friend and foe alike. This sermon, although

directed toward the children, had its effect on the uncle as

139

well. He called for Xrapogka to be called in. In a
trembling voice he told him:

Tw anun saepw, xaw we acnwuu ymeer anura

wenoaewa. Tw mewn sruM rpowyn u npeasomen

mean a aenuwonymuw. (XVIII, 49)
Following this speech he offered Xrapogka his freedom to
go wherever he pleased. XrapoSka accepted his freedom but
insisted that he would like to continue serving in his same
capacity. The epilogue recounts how eventually the uncle
and XrapoSka grew to become fast friends.

Certainly the greatest impetus for the transformation
of the uncle in this story came not from the brief sermon
of the priest, but from the example of XrapoSka. Contrary

to the pattern Shown in the stories of the Righteous Men and

consistent with that in Tomlenie duxa, we find that in add-

 

ition to the example, the actual transformation or its result
is depicted. This is a particularly characteristic feature
of not only the Holiday Tales in which the moral is a
prerequisite of the genre, but also of the Legends.

XrapoSka is not a colorful hero. The one incident which
I have described provides the only information we have
about him except for the brief epilogue. Dialogue is almost
nonexiStent. The only time he spoke was at the very end
when he said that he would stay on at the uncle's estate.
Otherwise, we have only a description of him as seen through
the eyes of a narrator who at the time was only five years
old. Although there is really no good reason to doubt

v . . . . . .
Xraposka's character, it is difficult to make a conv1nc1ng

140
case for him based upon this story alone. A child's per-
spective is not always the same as an adult's. An adult
is generally far more critical. An adult's recollection of
a childhood incident is perhaps even more unreliable. That
is the situation with which we are here faced. Either Leskov
the author or Leskov the child narrator does pass off
untenable observations in the plot. He seems to have
extended the attributes of the positive heroes to even the
animals, in particular to the bear Sganarel'. Sganarel' is
far more noble of character than the uncle is originally
shown to be. As a matter of fact, the description of Xrapogka
cited above would almost as aptly suit Sganarel'. Even if
we accepted all this as being credible, the limits cannot
be strained further. The imaginative narrator, however,
boldly continues. The bear becomes so gracious that even
when he is frightened and enraged, in flight for his life,
he pauses to lick the face of his master. This could be a
little extreme. It could also threaten the credibility of
the entire story. Perhaps the little boy's vision was not as
it should have been. Perhaps he didn't see everything
correctly. Could he also have interpreted the character of

XrapoSka incorrectly?

On the basis of our examination of similar tales, we
know that Leskov did not intend to cast aspersions upon his
hero. Xrapogka is so flat that he requires amplification
by analogy. Although other stories may gain through analogy,

this is the only one which requires it.

141

The Holiday Tale written for the year 1885, Pugalo,
originally bore the subtitle "Story for young people."42
Children's stories, of course, frequently contain moral
lessons. In a letter to Suvorin in 1887, however, Leskov
noted that "the story has been read with pleasure by adults
and children."43 Leskov's increasingly moralistic tones
suggest that he is indeed writing more and more for children,
but not necessarily for just youngsters, but for all of
God's "children." This fact is confirmed in a letter written

V

to v. G. Certkov, dated January 28, 1887.44

nurn (wapOn--nura, u snoe nurn) wano ywura MHOPHM

noneswwM nownrunm: xopmununy sa rpyna we wycara u

nanaua we news, a nOTOM rwesna we pasopara u mononewawym

ropwuwwym sa rpyna we rporara. Bce sro paswoe, na

a onwom nyxe, u aener w onwou nenu--x aocnurawum .

nymn.45

AS was the case with Zver', this story, too, is weighted
heavily toward the predominance of a plot of suspense. The

purpose of the plot is also parallel to that of 2133;. It
creates a situation suitable for the impact of the moral.

The substance of the plot of Pugalo is given by Leskov in one
sentence. "He [Selivan] represents a kind, honest peasant
from a 'wayside inn' who was considered to be a thief and a

bandit for no other reason than that he was extreme and

42A. I. Batjuto, "PrimeEanija," in Sobranie, VIII, 567.

 

43Letter to Suvorin, Nov. 9, 1887, in Sobranie, XI, 358.

 

44Vladimir Grigor'evig Certkov was a devoted disciple
of Tolstoj. He was responsible for propogation of many of
Tolstoj's ideas through his publication Posrednik.

 

45Letter to Certkov, Jan. 28, 1887, in Sobranie, XI, 328.

 

142
unsociable, and also that he concealed his wife, the daughter

of a retired executioner."46

The details of the story
involve members of the Leskov family plus others, and how they
grew so suspicious of the "scarecrow" Selivan. It ends with
a series of sermonettes by the narrator after the happy
conclusion required by the genre.

There are numerous similarities between Pugalo and
earlier stories. In structure it resembles 2133;; there
are as well numerous similarities in detail. Both of the
stories contain a scene in which the entire population of the
estate is assembled where an intrigue of considerable
suspense is to be played out. In ngrl_it was the killing
of Sganarel'. In Pugalo it is the scene in which the young
narrator's friend led everyone out to the most horrible place
he knew, Selivan's woods, in order to create the proper mood
for the recitation of his poetry. In both cases the scene
was interrupted by something unexpected and everyone ran
back to the house. In 2131: the bear, entangled in a rope
attached to a log, turned round and round threatening the
lives of those looking on. In Pugalo the friend of the
narrator screamed when he saw what he thought was a woman's
body. oThe scream caused everyone to run home. In both cases,
however, the incident resulted in positive action. In 2133;

the uncle's conversion followed. In Pugalo Selivan saved

the lives of the narrator and his brother while they were

46Letter to Suvorin, November 9, 1887, in Sobranie, XI,

 

3S7.

143

crossing a river. This was the first step in the breakdown
of the illusion that Selivan was a dangerous person. Illusion
has complicated many of Leskov's plots. We have commented
upon it frequently. In this story it plays a basic role; the
discovery of the woman's body which resulted in wholesale
panic was no more than the product of an overimaginative mind.
The humanitarian gesture of Selivan in saving the children
from the river was likewise misinterpreted. It was thought
to be an attempt to kidnap them.

The resolution of this story is very similar in form to

that in Na kraju sveta. In that story the bishop, who played

 

the role of doubter, was saved by the person he doubted. Here
the same occurs. The narrator's aunt together with the
governess and the children are returning home from Orel. The
distance is usually covered in five to six hours. On this
occasion, however, they were confronted with a severe snow-
storm. Since it was the day before Christmas, they were
anxious to make it home that day. Eventually, however, they
became snowbound. They were near Selivan's woods, the source
of many mysterious occurances. Suddenly the feared Selivan
himself appeared. He offered the shelter of his inn. The
aunt was petrified. She was carrying a chest with 30,000
roubles from the recently transacted sale of her estate. Yet
they had no choice but to accept Selivan's offer.

The night was restless, and at the first break of dawn
the family fled the house. In her haste, confusion and fear

the aunt forgot her chest and discovered her loss only upon

144
arriving home.' Selivan was immediately suspected of wrong-
doing. While the suspicions and accusations were at their
peak, Selivan was seen trudging up the road with the chest
on his shoulder. He had discovered it as soon as they had
left and had made an unsuccessful attempt to overtake them.
He then decided to walk the four versts with the chest in
order to assure that it would be properly returned. The aunt
offered him a reward for his honesty and effort, but Selivan
steadfastly maintained that nothing was due him.

The news of Selivan's good deed quickly spread about
town. From that time on the townspeople no longer feared
him. They often went out to visit him and brought gifts for
both him and his wife. The doubted had redeemed himself as

in Na kraju sveta. In this variant he merely rescued some

 

money instead of saving a life. The doubters were transformed.
Honesty was discovered where dishonesty had been suspected.
Trust replaced suspicion. Superstition gave way to truth,
and this in turn led to Christian love. With the story
already completed and the transformation already a fact, Leskov
began his sermon.
Xpucroc osapun nnw reOn ramy, woropom owyrwaano raoe
aooOpawewue--nycropewue remwwx nmneu. Hyrano Owno we
Cenuaaw, a aw camu--aama x wemy nonospurenawocrb,
woropan wuxomy we nosaonwna aunera ero noOpym COBeCTb.
Huuo ero xasanoca aaM remwwM, noromy, wro owo aame
Owno reMwO. HaOnmnu sro nnn roro, wroOw a npyrou pas
we Owra raqu cnean. (XIX, 76)
He then broadens the scope of his message by speaking in

more general terms about good and evil.

Tax acerna sno ponur npyroe sno u noOewnaercu

145

ronaxo noOpom, woropoe, no cnoay eaawrenuw, nenaer
owo u cepnne wame'wucrwmu. (XIX, 77)

As has been indicated from the narration, these sermons
are strictly after the fact. The transformation had already
taken place in all the townspeople. They had been won over
not by talk, but by the example of Selivan. AS was the case
with Xrapogka in 2131;, the example really consisted of only
the one incident. He had rescued the boys from the river and
he had been introduced as a character near the beginning, but
beyond that he did not even appear in the story until his
final persuading Eggp’dg,g£§23. He is occasionally seen from
others' perspectives, but again the most frequent perspective
was that of the narrator who was eight years old at the time
of the event.

Nowhere are his physical characteristics cited in detail.
The one sentence description given by the young narrator at
the time he was rescued by Selivan is the only description
to be found.

Bro Own mywuw nnorwwu, wopewacrwu, c npocenam,

a ronoae w a ycax, --Oopona KOMKOM u rome c

npocenam, rnasa muawe, Owcrpwe u cepbeswwe, wO

a ycrax wro-ro Onusxoe w ynwae. (XIX, 56)

In the initial introduction to the reader, it is not his
physical composition which is described, but his moral make up.
The significance of the one physical indicator provided is
that it is a fal§§_indicator of a moral weakness.

Manawux ow Own xopomuu, noOpwu u nocnymwwu, wo

ronawo wanawwuwy acerna rOBOpunu, wro c Cenuaawom

rpeOoaanaca ocr0poxwocra, norOMy uro y wero wa

nuue Owna wpacwaw meruwwa, wax orowb, --a sro
wuxorna napOM we craaurcw. (XIX, 33)

146
Moral features which are frequently implied in Leskov's earlier
heroes are here enumerated in as much detail as are physical
characteristics.

The third Holiday Tale I Shall discuss is entitled
Figura. It was written in 1889 and first appeared as an
Easter tale. Its original subtitle, "From a recollection
about the righteous men," suggests its close affinity to the
stories of that cycle. The plot is replete with details used
previously in other stories. Nonetheless, it is not just
a repetition of the "righteous man" theme. In this story
the hero not only teaches by example, but he himself under-
goes a transformation. He changes from being a good person
to being a better person. In both situations he is able to
effect changes in others. However, here he is a reworked
model; he is now made to fit into the mould of the Righteous

Man in a Tolstovka. He undergoes changes which the master

 

himself had undergone. In this story more than ever before
Leskov seems to have evolved an additional requirement in

the structure of the ideal. His previous ideals, including
all the Righteous Men, were depicted as random examples of
righteous men. In those stories Leskov required that his
positive heroes have certain moral qualities before they

could be considered for depiction as ideals. Now he seems to
be saying that possession of high moral qualities is no longer
sufficient. The hero must also be a common man. If he is
not, he must undergo a simplification procedure.

Most of Leskov's preceding heroes have already been

147
Simple men. All members of the Holiday Tales up to this
point comformed to this pattern. Some heroes, however, such
as Nikolaj Fermor, Samburskij, Pigmej etc., never found it
necessary to live in complete simplicity. Their life styles
were either immaterial or secondary to the quality of their
moral composition. The added requirements thus represent a
development, perhaps the final major development in the
Leskovian positive hero. The simplified hero remains a
constant throughout the Legends which follow. The change
which continues to occur is toward a more issue-oriented hero.
In the stories which follow, a hero will often represent a
particualar biblical precept such as "money is the root of
all evil." Leskov readily recognized human limitations and
was prepared to proceed gradually. "One should not hollow
out the whole thing all at one time," he told Certkov.
"Otherwise it becomes boring, and you will punch a hole in

it."47

Figura, the hero of the story which follows, turns
the other cheek when struck, and this becomes the moral of
the story.

In beginning the story of Figura, Leskov introduces his
hero with a detailed portrait. This is the last story in
which We shall see such a description.

eurypa...umen ner owono mecrunecnru, wo oOnanan eme

swawurenawom cunom u wuxorna we manoaancn wa wesnopoaae

Ow umen orpomwwu pocr u arneruuecwoe cnoxewue: aonocw

y wero Ownu rycrwe, xopuuweawe, nouru Oes npocenu, no
you "ceawe". no coOcraewwomy ero awpamewum, ow "cuaua

V
47Letter to Certkov, April 28, 1887, in Sobranie,
x1, 329.

 

 

 

 

. . ... . new... . E. ....l. $1.1. Vi...“ ”kernel,“
. , , wall
I .

 

148
s MOpnw--wx nec," ro ecra cenen, wawuwan we c ronoaw,
a c ycoa-—xaw cenemr crapwe coOawu. Bopona y wero
rome Owna Ow cenaw, wo ow ee Opun. Fnasa y eurypw
Ownu Oonamue, cepwe c noaonowom, ryOw pymnwwe, uaer

nuna CMYI‘J'IHH K saropenwu. BSI‘J‘IHJI 6P0 HMGJI awpaixewue

cmenoe, ymwoe u c orrewwOM saraewwou manopoccuucwou
upowuu. (XIX, 79-80)

This is the only physical description of Figura given in
this story. The rest of the descriptions are devoted to the
exposition of his moral qualities. Nonetheless, this physical
description should not be disregarded. According to the
formula developed throughout this study, this description
would tie Figura very closely to the earth. It is the
description of a Golovan, of an Odnodum and of a Fljagin.
This would seem to belie Figura's noble birth and native
intelligence. It must be remembered, however, that we are
dealing with two variants of the same person in this story.
In one case we are concerned with Figura the army officer
and member of the nobility. In the other case we have a hero
who has undergone the simplification process and is a simple
vegetable farmer. It is during the time of his depiction as
a farmer that the description above is cited. At no time
during his depiction as an officer is a physical description
of any sort given. It is entirely reasonable to assume that
Leskov uses this description to indicate the success of
Figura's simplification and his suitability to the new task.
The type of work Figura takes up as well as the quality
of his production are both reminiscent of Golovan. Both
Golovan and Figura lived apart on the edge of town and were

renowned for their excellent dairy products. The difference

149
between the two is seen only when we examine the places
where they marketed their goods. Golovan sold his goods to
the Gentlemen's Club in Orel. He did this not because he
preferred one class of people to the other. He sold to them
because they needed dairy products and he had dairy products
to sell. His selection of a market was not an issue in the
story. In Figura, however, the market is an issue. Figura
would not sell to someone who was going to resell his product.
He sold his vegetables in the marketplace and preferred to
sell directly to the people who were going to consume them.
In other words, here Leskov made an issue where previously
none had existed. He is now primarily concerned with the lot
of the common man. To be sure, Leskov was never devoid of
concern for any man. It is just that now he requires the
simplification process of which we have already spoken.

The transformation took place as the result of an
incident which occurred when Figura was serving as an officer
in the forces of General Dmitrij Osten-Saken.48 While
standing guard one night, Figura was slapped by a drunken
Cossack subordinate in front of witnesses. This created an
agonizing situation for him. He truly believed that the man
should be forgiven according to the precepts of Christianity.
On the other hand, military tradition required that severe

reprisal be taken for the insult to the honor of an officer.

48General Dmitrij Erofeevig Osten-Saken (1790-1881).
He participated in Russian military campaigns until 1854
and was renowned for his religiosity.

150
Figura decided to forgive him and elicited a promise from
all present that the matter be suppressed. Eventually,
however, the story was leaked and Figura was called in to
face General Osten-Saken himself. The General was a God
fearing man and understood Figura's problem. He could not,
however, let the matter pass without action being taken.
Figura was discharged from the service and given a small
pension. He settled down on his little farm where he could
till the soil. When he found a woman and her small daughter
in despair, he took them in. It was generally assumed that
they were living in sin and the little girl was their daughter.

This is, of course, borrowed directly from Nesmertel'nyj

 

Golovan. Figura lived to the end in this simple peasant
manner.
From the plot is would appear that this story differs

v
very little from such stories as Celovek na Easax and

 

Nesmertel'nyj Golovan. In these stories the Righteous Man

 

served as an ideal hero, --a model for imitation. In Figura
example is likewise important, but there is more. Leskov
himself enters into this story as an advocate for a particular
way of life. Throughout the years he had repeatedly advocated
righteOusneSS in general. However, he avoided discussing
things which had no actual bearing on the quality of the
person but were only matters of personal preference. In

this story on three occasions Leskov brought up the question
of vegetarianism. In the first instance it is merely

mentioned without defense as part of the initial description

151
of Figura and his "family." In the second instance it is
staunchly defended in an aside as Figura recalls his mother
who was the first in the family to become a vegetarian. Her
reasons are given. The final instance is in Figura's
discussion with Osten-Saken just before leaving the army.
Osten-Saken used it as evidence that Figura was more
suitable than most for the life of a monk because he was
already a vegetarian.

The use of redundancy by Leskov in this matter is
didactic in purpose; he is attempting to make a case for
vegetarianism. It should be observed that during the last
years of his life Leskov himself was a vegetarian.49

Another way Leskov indicates his preference for the
life style of the common man is by contrasting it directly
with that of Figura in his role as officer. Since the common
man bears his intolerable situation with such nobility of
spirit, we perceive him more positively than we do Figura.

H aena manoaawae sa cnywa nonyuam u wuwoa sacnyxuaam,

a aow connar--ow coaceM Oeswanenwwu wenoaex, na eme

Oamr ero Oes munocepnuw, --emy xyna nnn cpaawewua

rnnenee...a aenb nuaer we, repnur u we xyxcwrcn. (XIX, 85)
Figura himself is blameless. His behaviour is in every way
exemplary. The Single difference is in the fact that he has
had to endure less. The requirement that the hero of the
story experience more tribulation is reflected in all the
remaining stories I have selected. Toward the end of his life,
however, it may have become more of a theoretical requirement

49Andrej Leskov, p. 614.

 

 

 

152
than a practical demand,thus bringing him very close to the
position previously embraced by Dostoevskij and condemned
by Leskov.

In a conversation with Faresov recorded shortly before
Leskov's death, he shows his penchant for strict asceticism
to be considerably softened.

myrwux sror flea Huxonaeauwl BaweM neucraurenawo

wewmuwe we saOoruraca o wpacore u uswmecrae; saueM

xonwra xo mwe a rocru Oes ranom w ronrara wucrwu non

rpnsam.50

Moralizing in Figura is less direct than in the preceding
Holiday Tales. The transformation mentioned earlier is one
expression of it--the insinuation being that one must undergo
simplification in order to be fully acceptable to God. It

is further accomplished through Figura's self defense before

General Osten-Saken. In both Eelovek na gasax and Figura the

 

primary heroes have broken the military code or tradition
because they felt humanitarian considerations and biblical
precepts outweighed military law. Both were punished for
their actions. Postnikov did not attempt to justify his
actions to his superiors. He took his punishment and was
actually happy that it was so light. Then he returned to his
former situation. Figura too was willing to take his
punishment. He never expected to go unpunished. Nonetheless,
he felt it necessary to stand up and justify what he had done
as the sole course of action in consonance with biblical

precepts. The defense itself is a didactic discussion firmly

SOFaresov, p. 314.

153
establishing God's law as superior to military law. It also
precipitates the simplification process discussed above;
it recommends the perfection of the reader.
The last Holiday Tale with which I shall deal in this

study iS entitled Pustopljasy. This tale is written in the

 

style of the Legends which will be discussed immediately
following. I

Pustopljasy is the story of the inhabitants of the town

 

of Pustopljasov during a time of famine. It is told by an
old man who had lived through those difficult times. His
story is evidence of how sometimes even advance warning of
an impending disaster is not sufficient to cause those
hearing the warning to take the necessary steps to avoid it.
At the time of the famine, the town of Pustopljasov was
for some reason spared. Although all neighboring towns
suffered, Pustopljasov enjoyed a normal harvest. In all the
town there was but one man, Fedos Ivanov, who recommended
austerity in the use of the town's supplies.
Ax, no-Bomau-ro wano Ow waM mura renepa a crporocru,
erOw ceOe wax moxwo mewbme wsaecra, a Ooname nara
OencraewwwM. (XXXIII, 108)
His counsel was scorned even by his own granddaughter who
lived with him. In order that his words be discounted, he
was accused of trying to act like a priest when really he was
only a simple peasant. Furthermore, the days of his youth
were recalled, when he had performed many foolish acts.
Nonetheless, Fedos steadfastly maintained that one need not

be a special messenger sent from God in order to transmit his

154
will. He regretted the foolishness of his youth, but added
that he had learned from this experience and now wanted to
pass on the knowledge he had gained.

Eventually PustOpljasov was burned out, both the food
and the houses being destroyed. Fedos Ivanov was unmoved.
He considered the punishment deserved and looked forward
to receiving God's blessing again in the future.

The tone of this story is almost parabolic. While
this may have the interesting effect of elevating the status
of Fedos Ivanov and thus creating for him a mythical hero
role to contrast with his simple peasant stature, I do not
believe it of primary importance here. More important is the
way he fits into the scheme of things as they have been
developing in previous heroes. First of all, Fedos has met
the latest requirement; he has endured a great deal. He
also is shown to have undergone a transformation from a
foolish youth to a wise old man. The transformation has
supplied him with sufficient credentials to enable him to
act as God's messenger. He not only acts like a priest, but
he acts to the exclusion of the priest. Since Fedos is the
only one in town who is moralizing, either no priest is there
or the priest's position as God's messenger has been usurped
by Fedos. Certainly status as God's spokesman ranks higher
in Leskov's eyes than the mythical hero status attained
through use of the parable.

Fedos has no negative traits in the present. He has

already overcome all that. His patience and Christlike

155

humility now serve as an example for others. The juxtaposition
of Fedos to his granddaughter suggests perhaps a before and
after picture of Fedos himself. It is a comparison of age
and youth, maturity and immaturity, wisdom and foolishness,
right and wrong. Repeatedly Fedos pleads: "It is now
necessary, brothers, to suffer with those who are suffering,
and not celebrate, --neither drinking wine nor eating cakes.
(XXXIII, 109) The sermon as presented in the specific
context within the parable suggests certain universal
humanitarian truths. It shows concern for one's fellow man.
The parable is itself once again the dramatization of the
golden rule aS we saw reflected earlier in some of the stories
of the Righteous Men. Selflessness again reaches the point
of altruism.

We spoke earlier of the Righteous Men as "flat" heroes.
We noted how they evolved into a pure state with few or no
negative characteristics. Have we now simply come back to
the same point? Perhaps here at the end of the Holiday Tales
is a proper point to recapitulate.

One of the primary differences between the Righteous

Men and the Righteous Men in Tolstovkas appears to be centered

 

in the missionary zeal of the two groups. It lies in their
desire to bring about change in either their protagonists,
themselves, or in some third party present in the story. Odnodum
for example, lived an exemplary life and even influenced
someone's way of life because of it. However, he never sought

to put an end to the corruption around him by direct

156
confrontation with those guilty of the corruption. Golovan
too lived as good a life as one could lead, but he made no
demands that those living corrupt lives change their style.

In Ingenery-bessrebreniki the man most likely to challenge

 

sin as he saw it, Brjanganinov, made no overt progress in
stemming the graft within the system. Instead, he retreated
from the conflict supposedly to wage a purification campaign
within what Should have been the cleanest place of all, the
monasteries. Although we are given reports that the campaign
was successful, it is conducted entirely behind the scenes,
beyond the reach of the reader. Samburskij, in Russkij

demokrat v Pol'ge, also stepped down rather than wage open

 

battle. The members of the Holiday Tales as well as Koza

in Tomlenie duxa were, for the most part, not entirely

 

satisfied just by living exemplary lives. In addition, they
Often went on to make demands for change in others. Koza
went directly to the source of injustice as he saw it. He
confronted the governor's wife with the way she had taught
her son. Then, in order to help mould the children's
developing minds, he lectured them about the prOper way to
live. 2133;, while containing only a small amount of direct
ministry is, nonetheless, didactic to the core. It involves
the full character transformation, not of the central
positive hero, but of one of the central figures through an
impetus provided by the central positive hero. Pugalo
parallels this in so much as there is little direct preaching,

but the transformation of an entire town is brought about by

157
the positive hero. In Figura we observed the most subtle
type of sermonizing. First of all, we were taught by the
transformation of the positive hero himself. We were
taught that one's degree of goodness is measured not only
by the quality of his example, but by the amount that he
was required to endure. Secondly, we learned in plot
superficialities that certain life habits such as vegetar-
ianism, while not necessarily essential, were, nonetheless,

desirable. Finally, in Pustppljasy the story, a parable,

 

is a sermon in itself. The purpose of the story is not to
describe a good man, but to teach us how to live. Whereas
the reader was never asked to emulate Golovan, he is asked
to imitate Fedos. We have, in a sense, gone full circle in
so far as the heroes are quite similar. However, it must
be remembered that the Righteous Men were described as they
were found to be, merely possessing a number of positive
characteristics. Fedos Ivanov and the other positive heroes
of the Holiday Tales were contrived heroes. The desirable
characteristics were first assembled by the author and then
ascribed to a hero. Since the positive hero, therefore,
exists in order to prove that one or a combination of
characteristics are good, he is tendentious from the very
start. He amounts to little more than a visual aid for
Leskov's lecture.

Leskov never denied his own tendentiousness, although
he did originally oppose it in theory. A year before he

died he said to V. ProtOpOpov: "I don't understand the

158
principle 'art for art's sake' at all: no, art must serve a

n51

v
cause In a letter written to Subinskij just two months

before his death, he spelled out the cause more explicitly.
"The only thing that merits praise is that which leads to

betterment by promoting the cleansing Of the conscience and
the explanation of ideas which help society to free itself

52 We shall

from practices created by ignorance and egoism.
see this cause being promoted further in Leskov's Legends
which follow.

In December, 1887 Leskov wrote to Suvorin thanking him
for agreeing to make a statement about the completion of
Leskov's survey of the Prologue as a narrative source. In
the letter he says: "The Prologue is rubbish, but in it are

"53 Leskov himself used

pictures such as you cannot imagine.
those pictures in a number of his Legends. The familiarity

of the Prologue themes to the simple folk made them especially
desirable in their morally didactic role.

The first story of this genre which I shall discuss is

entitled Skomorox Pamfalon. In this story Leskov contrasts

 

two Christians possessing numerous virtues with a third
who in many reSpectS appears to be less virtuous. It is

this third Christian, however, named Pamfalon, who emerges

51V. ProtOpopov, "U N. S. Leskova," Peterburgskaja
gazeta (November 27, 1894).

 

y.
652Letter to Subinskij, December 17, 1894, in Sobranie,
XI, 02.

 

:3Letter to Suvorin, December 26, 1887. in Sobranie,
XI, 3 Z.

 

159

as the positive ideal. With this in mind, we shall observe
that quality existent in Pamfalon but lacking in the other
two positive heroes, Magna and Ermij. Furthermore, since
both Magna and Ermij undergo a transformation, we shall
look at the changes which take place as a result of the
transformation. This should give us a goOd idea of what
Leskov feels are the requirements of his positive ideal at
this time.

The story begins in Constantinople. It introduces a
man who was well known in those parts, Ermij.

Ow Own Oorar, Onaroponew u swarew; umen npnmou u

wecrwwu xapaxrep; nwOun npaany u wewaaunen

npuraopcrao, a sro coaceM we mno non crara romy

apemewu, a xoropOM ow mun. (XXIX, 108)
This description is totally positive and, with the notable
exception of any reference to physical characteristics, is
very similar to the earlier descriptions of the Righteous
Men. Leskov then went on to describe Ermij's love for his
fellow man. He felt that if one were to believe that the
Gospels represent the proper way to live, it was surely
necessary to practice those truths. Ermij's friends laughed
at him because of his beliefs. Yet, the more he reflected
on his own situation, the more he became convinced that
Christianity and personal eminence were incompatable. For
this reason he decided to go to the Emperor and request that
he be allowed to remove himself from all situations of
authority. He wanted to live the rest of his life as a

simple person. The request was eventually granted. Then

160
Ermij's wife passed away leaving him completely without
responsibility for anyone but himself. He interpreted this
as a sign from above. He freed his slaves and divided his
riches amongst the needy. Then he left the capital and
went into the wilderness to seek solace. There he found a
rocky column. He scaled it and lived there for the next
thirty years. His food was brought to him by the inhabitants
of a nearby town. During the thirty years, Ermij spoke with
no one. He never regretted his decision to give up his

riches.

Ow pasmwmnwn 0 rom: wax sa sru rpunnara ner sno a
caere nonxwo Owno ymwomuracw u wax non noxpoaOM
xawwecraa u nycrocawrcraa, samewwmmero wacrowmee
yqewue caoumu awnymxamu, renepa waaepwo uccwxna
yxe a nmnnx acwxaw ucruwwaw noOpOnerena u ocranaca
onwa Oopma Oes conepwawuw. (XXIX, 113)
Ermij despaired in the thought that there seemed to be no
one worthy of eternal life.
One day he heard a voice commanding him to come down
from his nest and go to Damascus where he would find a
real Christian example. That man was Pamfalon. Ermij went
there but was greatly disappointed by what he found.
Pamfalon was known by the inhabitants of Damascus not for the

quality of his character, but for his ability as an enter-

tainer. He was a Skomorox, a clown. How could such a man

 

be worthy of eternal life? When they met, Pamfalon's first
description is given:

BHJI GPO crpawew: OH yiwe wenoaex we MOHOJIOH, a
noncrapoaar, umeer III/11.10 CMYI‘J'IOG, 1105POIIYUJHO€ H
aecenoe, C DOCTOHHHW ymepewwwM BblaneHHeM H J'IeI‘KOM
5JIeCROM rnas, HO J'IHLIO 3T0 pacxpamewo, a nonycenaw

161

ronoaa acw saaura a menwue wynpu, u wa wux waner

rowxuw menwwu OOonow, c xoroporo awus aucnr u Opewuar

Onecrnmue wpyxowxu u saesnowwu. (XXIX, 123)

The description is not nearly as appealing as the earlier
description of Ermij had been.

Pamfalon's early conversation with Ermij consisted of
simple everyday things. Ermij, however, wanted to move on
to weightier subjects. He wanted to know what exactly
Pamfalon did that made him so pleasing to God. To this

question Pamfalon replied:

Hro rw, uro rw, crapenl Kaxoe or meww yromnewue
Oory! na mwe 06 erM name w nymara wenasw. (XXIX, 126)

This was incomprehensible to Ermij. Pleasing God was
essential for salvation according to his beliefs. But for
Pamfalon, matters of faith and salvation were of no
consequence. Thinking about such things merely interfered
with his work and was therefore of no value. The complexity
of thought evidenced by Ermij's perpetual questioning contrasts
sharply with the Simplicity of Pamfalon's life and views.
Finally Pamfalon asked:

Tax saweM we rw roaopuma, uro xowema or meww Oecen

nnw caoero waywewuw? Kawue waywewuw mory nara w,

npnwwou cxomopox, reOe, mywy, umeamemy cuny

paccymnara O Oore u o nmnwx a CBHTOM OesMOnauu

nycrwwu? (XXIX, 128)
"Poor Pamfalon," thought Ermij.

In rapid fire succession a number of issues are raised
which exhibit contrasting views on differing approaches to

Christianity. To the disdain of Ermij, Pamfalon expressed a

taste for wine, seeing it essential to the Situation in which

162

he worked. Then he went on to relate his past. He was the
son of a well known person, but his mother died when he was
young and his father did not want him. He was taken in by a
Skomorox who taught him the trade so he too would have a
way to make a living. His work generally consisted of going
to the homes of courtesans and entertaining their clientele.
"Poor, poor Pamfalon," thought Ermij. He was sure that
Pamfalon would perish together with the prostitutes. But
Pamfalon quickly came to the defense of the prostitutes:

Bepa mwe noqrewwwu crapux, wro xuaoe acerna muawm

ocraercw, u y rerep wacro anrcw a rpynu npexpacwoe

cepnue. A newanbwo wam Owra wa nwpax y Oorarwx

rocnon. Bor ram wacro acrpewamrcw cxaepwwe nmnu;

owu ropnw, wanmewww u aecenaw xorwr, a caoOonworO

cmexa u myrox we repnwr. (XXIX, 130)
Ermij could not comprehend such an attitude:

0 rope! o rope! ...auwy, wro ow name coacem ewe

nanex or roro, qroOw nowwmara, a wem norpws, wo

ero ym u ero ecrecrao, mower Owra, noOpw...noromy

a, aepwo, nnw roro w wemy u nocnaw, wroOw awaecra

ero onapewwym nymy wa uwym nyruwy. (XXIX, 130)
Pamfalon readily accepted the position of low esteem to which
he had been assigned by Ermij. He considered himself a
sinner because, contrary to Christian teachings, he had once
made a vow and had later been compelled to break it. This

is the same thing that Koza had warned the children about in

Tomlenie duxa. Ermij went on, drawing on concepts far too

 

complex for the simple Pamfalon to comprehend. Finally,
Pamfalon remarked:
Her, 3 wuwero we swam oO srom. na u wax w mory

swara O muswu meprawx, xorna n we swam name acero
O nuawx? (XXIX, 131)

163
Later Pamfalon added that contrary to the way Ermij felt,
he did not fear God but loved him. Ermij had not thought
of it that way.

The issues raised in this conversation between Ermij
and Pamfalon are all results of their differing perceptions
Of the same thing. Ermij viewed Christianity from an
intellectual point of view. It was a result of his upbringing
and his education. Pamfalon, on the other hand, perceived
Christianity from a simple, practical point of view, devoid
of the pride of intellectualism and pseudo-confidence in
his ability to judge others' actions. Both men are Sincere
and devout. Neither is a negative hero. However, their
juxtaposition certainly suggests an upcoming value judgement
on the part of Leskov. This is accomplished through the
narration of Pamfalon's story, a central part of which is
concerned with the third principal personage, Magna.

Magna is the daughter of wealthy parents who forced
her into marriage with a scoundrel. After he was thrown
into debtor's prison, Magna was forced into slavery,
serving as a prostitute. Her suffering of which She never
complained, is consistent with the hardships undergone by

all other Righteous Men in Tolstovkas. Magna was eventually

 

rescued from her Situation by her true love and aided
financially both by a courtesan whom she had previously
scorned because of her occupation and by Pamfalon. The
money was used to buy her scoundrel husband out of prison

and reunite the family.

 

 

 

 

 

164
Ermij was visibly moved by the tale Pamfalon presented.
He returned to the wilderness and found his spot on the
rocky column occupied by birds. The inhabitants of the
nearby town Offered to clear them out but Ermij replied:

He memaure um aura caou rwesna. Hrunw nonmww mura
a cwane, a wenoaew nonmew cnywura wenoaewy. (XXIX, 164)

He spent the rest of his life working as a goat herder
amongst the townfolk.
It is plain to see that both Ermij and Magna have

undergone a transformation influenced by the Skomorox Pamfalon.

 

In Magna's case, the transformation consisted of the
recognition that a person Should not be judged on the basis

of the situation in which he finds himself. This lesson
applied both in her former attitude towards fallen women

and in her original impression of Pamfalon. Her opinions were
fostered by her parents who in many respects were excellent
peOple, but who suffered two glaring weaknesses. First of all
they were wealthy: "It is easier for a camel to go through

a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of God." (Matthew 19:24) Secondly, they suffered a sense of
pride and exclusiveness unbefitting a bona fide Leskovian
positive hero from this cycle. "And whosoever shall exalt
himself shall by humbled; and whosoever shall humble himself
shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:12) Both of these negative
features are expressed in one sentence. "At home she [Magna]
couldn't admit to her proud parents that she was talking with

a man of my contemptible calling." (XXIX, 148) The way for

165
Magna to be purged from those faults was for her to become
poor and for her herself to become a fallen woman. Having
accomplished these things, she is ready to take her place
beside Pamfalon.

Ermij was in much the same situation as Magna. He too
was a wealthy educated man with a high regard for himself.

He did give away his money to the poor in accord with one
Biblical precept: "If thou wouldst be perfect, go, sell that
which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven." (Matthew 19:21) However, his motivation
in doing so was not as it should have been. By giving away
his money and releasing his slaves, he seemed to be showing
others how good he was. The gesture was not altruistic but
was to set himself above those who had not done the same. It
therefore clashed with another biblical warning: "Take

heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be

seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who

is in heaven." (Matthew 6:1)

Ermij then went off by himself to the wilderness where
he completely lost touch with the other humans of the world.
His actions were Spurred on not by the heart alone, by an
irresiStable urge to do good, but rather by the mind. He
reasoned that he must give away his possessions and live away
from Sin, and in so doing Ermij erred. Leskov's heroes do
not reason out goodness. They act from instinctive goodness.

Ermij's transformation, even more than Magna's, was the

result of Pamfalon's influence. Whereas Magna to a large

 

166
extent learned by her own experiences, Ermij was unable to
change at all until he had heard Pamfalon's story. Even
after he had first met Pamfalon he was still thinking of him
as being unworthy of salvation. "Judge not that ye be not
judged." (Matthew 7:1) However, after hearing Pamfalon's
story, he realized as had Magna the necessity of withholding
judgement. From both Magna and Pamfalon, he learned that it
is necessary to retain contact with people in order to be
of service to them. Magna underwent endless torture in
order to help her husband. Never did she utter a Single word
of condemnation about him despite the suffering she was
required to endure. She in turn was assisted by Pamfalon, who,
significantly, was further aided by the courtesan Azella after
being refused by Magna's wealthy friends. Leskov does not go
into much detail in his treatment of Azella, but he does
treat her very sympathetically. He endows her with one
essential ingredient of a positive hero, the desire to serve
a person in need. He avoids any discussion of the reason She
is a prostitute lest he fall into the same pitfall into which
Ermij had fallen, --judging others. In the story which follows,
Leskov goes even further; he depicts a fallen woman as his
central positive hero.

In this story, then, the essential ingredients,besides
the desire to aid one's fellow man, are humility and
simplicity. Simplicity must be evidenced in intellectual as
well as economic matters. Possession of these traits can

more than compensate for certain other shortcomings. Moreover

 

167
the absence of any of these traits cannot be offset by the
presence of additional positive characteristics. All other
characteristics, including physical indicators, are clearly
secondary.

Prekrasnaja Aza is an example of a story in which Leskov
presented one of his purest examples of Christian love and
selflessness. He took a woman who had virtually everything
necessary to be happy for her whole life. She had beauty,
riches and friends. She was humble, pure and independent
of spirit. It was actually a positive characteristic which
resulted in her loss of wealth and social position and her
fall to the lowly occupation of prostitute on the banks of
the Nile. As a gesture of empathy toward a stranger, a
foreigner and a man of another faith, Aza turned over an
equivalent of the value of all her earthly possessions. She
gave him everything so he could pay off his debts and his
daughter Io would not have to give herself over to the debt
holder. Selflessness is so abundant in this story that
everyone seems to be ready to sacrifice himself for others.
10, a beautiful and pure woman like Aza, volunteered to
sacrifice her happiness and her life for her family. As her
father pondered his difficult situation, she said:

HmOoaa w reOe w x marepu, xoropaw we cwecwer raoero

ywumewuw, a0 mwe renepa roaopur cunaweu anau x moemy

mewuxy: ow monon, ...Ow noanur npyrym u c weu nycra
yswaer cwacrae cynpywecxou xuswu, a w ... a race

nowa ... H nowa moew marepu ... aw meww aocnuranu ...

aw crapw.... He roaopu mwe Oonbme wu cnoaa, oren,
noromy wro w raepno pemunaca. (XXIX, 99)

Her father's response was to go to Aza's estate. He

 

168
would commit suicide by hanging himself in the crook of a
tree. After being discovered by Aza as he was preparing to
carry it out, he explained his rationale. ‘

Korna n we Oyny a muawx, HO we crawer Oonrbcw xononwu

woropym moryr waOura wa mew ee orny, u owa awuner

samym 3a caoero wewuxa, a we nponacr ceOw panu orna

Oorawy wa Oecwecrwoe nowe. (XXIX, 100)

The biggest sacrifice is left for Aza to make. She saw
the threat of unhappiness and pain to an entire family more
serious than unhappiness and pain to herself, an orphan
virtually alone. She went ahead and gave all her possessions
to the man. Her selfless act was not recognized as such by
her deceased parents' former acquaintances. They condemned
her for her actions, particularly as they were directed
toward a person of another faith. Her own friends also
turned away from her in her time of need. Being unable to
support herself in any other way, she took to prostitution.
In so doing she lost the last remnant of her former good
life, her beauty. Although never ever regretting her decision
to help the needy family, she eventually fell into despair
about her present lot. Finally, she contemplated suicide.
At he point of carrying it out, She was approached by a
foreigner. He gave her food and drink but most of all he
gave her spiritual food and drink. He made her aware of God
and of his love in a way she had never before known. He
then sent her to the religious men of Alexandria for further

help. When she arrived there in her weakened state, they

tried to feed her dogma. Despite her pleas that she was too

169

near death for there to be adequate time for such training,
the training continued. It appeared that her desire to be
baptized would not be realized. Finally, on her deathbed a
miracle took place which fulfilled her wish. She was dressed
in the baptismal vestments by two brightly Shining men and
then her soul departed her body. At this point the story
ends. Leskov quite obviously sees salvation possible with-
out all the dogmatic preliminaries of the official church.

It is not difficult to see why at one time Tolstoj thought

 

this Leskov's best work.54

It can be seen that thematically Prekrasnaja Aza closely

 

parallels Skomorox Pamfalon, although the exposition of the

 

two stories is quite different. The qualities of the two
central positive heroes are very similar. Both are simple
people with only modest aspirations in life. This is true

of both heroes not only when they are poverty stricken, but
when they have money. When in possession of money, both
sought no more than physical comfort. However, both
voluntarily placed themselves in positions of poverty for the
sake of someone they felt needed the money more. In both
cases their selflessness forced them into what are tradition-
ally interpreted to be unchristian occupations. Neither

would remain in his position given the opportunity to do

54In a letter to Suvorin dated April 19, 1888 Leskov
writes:"He [Tolstoj] writes that he places Aza higher than
anything else, and other praises about which there is no
reason to speak." Sobranie, X1, 380.

 

170.
something else, but neither was suited to any other type of
work. Furthermore, neither interpreted his position as
necessarily condemning nor does either regret the decision
he made which forced him into that position. In neither
story are detailed physical descriptions given. Aza's
beauty is, of course, mentioned and is even stressed in the
title, but it has a functional importance here as opposed to
its symbolic use in some of the earlier stories. Beauty here
is a device used to add an additional artificial feature to
make the status quo appear to be more desirable for Aza.
It is artificial in the sense that it is only described in
order that it can be sacrificed later on in the story. The
more Aza has,the more She can lose. The more she loses, the
more dramatic the story. The sacrifice that Aza SO willingly
makes, as well as the sacrifice made by all three positive
heroes in Skomorox Pamfalon point directly to the primary
lesson Leskov intends in these stories. He is very concerned
with the purpose of life. Ermij expressed that purpose
directly when he said that man must serve mankind. The
other positive heroes have illustrated the very same thing.
No sacrifice is too great to give, even if it is one's own
life, if it is given in service to mankind. This is also the

message central to Sovestnyj Danila, the story which follows,

 

and it is the message which shines through in Askalonskij

 

zlodej, the final story we Shall discuss.

As we have seen on so many-occasions, in Sovestnyj Danila

 

the hero's name appears in the title of the story. The

 

 

 

171
pattern emerging in this cycle, being in no way unique to
the cycle, is to list the hero's name together with a
qualifying idiosyncratic feature. Pamfalon was not called
by a nickname as he probably would have been had he appeared
in the cycle of the Righteous Men. He is called by his own
name, Pamfalon. Still, Leskov makes him stand out in some
way. He accomplishes this by focusing upon a feature which
both sets him apart and is an important issue in the story.

In Pamfalon's case this was the fact that he was a Skomorox.

 

In the case of Aza it was her beauty, both physical and moral.
In the present case it is Danila's conscience which sets him
apart from all others. As a matter of fact, it even sets

him apart from a number of church leaders in whom a

conscience Should be highly developed. This represents another
broadside aimed at the official church by Leskov.

Danila's conscience first began to bother him the moment
he killed a "barbarian," a non-Christian, in an act which
could only have been interpreted aS justifiable homicide
according to contemporary judicial standards. Nonetheless,
Danila began going to all the patriarchs in turn in an effort
to be purged of the guilt of his disobedience of the biblical
command: "Thou shalt not kill." Each in his turn refused to
condemn Danila's action as sinful since the deceased was a
non-Christian anyway. Danila's conscience continued to
bother him and he continued his search for a release from its
hold. Finally, after wasting much of his life seeking

purification through suffering, he realized that possession

172

of a conscience is a positive thing. One should not attempt
to drive it out. His conscience then showed him to what end
his efforts should be directed in life. Nearby was a leper,
sorely in need of help. Danila went to him and spent day
after day providing him with all the assistance he could.
Eventually his activities were discovered by the townSpeople
and he was totally rejected. Undaunted, he continued to
offer help until the leper finally died. As Danila stood
there bemoaning the fact that he had wasted so much of his
life in search, a young man approached him seeking to be

his disciple. Danila's words to him conclude the story.

Ocraaawcn npu onwom ywewuw Xpucra u unw cnyxwra
nwnwm. (XXX, 20)

This is exactly the same conclusion reached by Ermij after his
association with Pamfalon. It is exactly the same philosophy
as espoused by Aza in giving away all she owned. And once
again the danger into which Danila placed himself in his
effort to serve people was strictly voluntary. In all

three of the central heroes seen here there has been a pre-
occupation with not only good, but with service to others.
This preoccupation takes over their lives so totally, that
negative actions are precluded. They belong to the same
family of ascetics as Nikolaj Fermor, Brjanbaninov, Perskij,
etc. They differ from them in the same way that the heroes
of this period generally differ from the Righteous Men.

These positive heroes are preaching whereas the Righteous Men

were simply described as examples. We Shall take up this point

173
in more depth in our concluding remarks following the

discussion of the final story, Askalonskij zlodej.

 

This story begins with a description of the lives of
a seemingly ideal family in an almost perfect life situation.
The description of them is reminiscent of the description
given of Aza in her initial introduction. This family is
successful, well-liked and morally good. The head of the
family, Falolej, was a rich merchant. He had heard of the.
teachings of Christ while abroad. Although he didn't
understand everything, he was trying to follow those teach-
ings as best he could. His beautiful wife, Tenija, was the
daughter of a well-known heathen sacrificial priest. She
was educated and kind. They had two small children.. The
final member of the family was Falolej's widowed mother,
Puplija. Materially, the family wanted for nothing.

Despite his riches, Falolej still thirsted for more.
This trait disturbed Tenija greatly. She asked him if his
desire for money was not contrary to his Christian
religion. He replied:

B wameu aepe ecra ro, wro reOe wenowwrwo: wroOw Owra

noOpwm, wano umera wem nmnwm nomorara: ... H Oorarem

c rem, qroOw, coOpaa mworo a caoux pyxax, norom usnura

_sro wa acex u wauara Onaroraopura caoum no aepe.

(XXX, 32)

The situation as presented at this point is very similar to
that of Ermij. We have a nominal Christian who really is a
good man. However, he simply does not understand that one

cannot be selective in abiding by the teachings of Christ.

It was written: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon

174
earth, where moth and rust consume, and where theives break
through and steal: ... for where thy treasure is, there will
thy heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) Furthermore, the first
commandment expressly states: "Thou shalt have no other gods
before me." (Exodus 20:3)

Tenija, on the other hand, is not even a Christian. Yet
she seems to understand the principles of Christianity better
than her husband. For this reason it seems highly predictable
that Tenija will emerge as the most positive member of the
family despite her heathen upbringing. What is not clear at
this point is how this will take place and what will be the
role of the heretofore unmentioned villain of Askalon.

Falolej quickly lost everything he had on the high seas.
In addition he was thrown into prison as a debtor since it
was generally believed that his Ships had not been wrecked,
but that he had sold the wares he was carrying and had hidden
the money. His house was sold and he was liable to the
collector of arrears, Tivurtij. Tivurtij's description is
given.

...nuuo umen nprnoe u cxaepwoe, naera aapeworo

ropoxa, w coacem Oesaonocwoe, rnasa wepwwe, aexu

aanuwamu, ace reno mnrxoe u wanpywewwoe, a xonun

ruxo, wax wora. (XXX, 35)

Compare this description of Tivurtij with the initial
description of Anastas, the villian of Askalon, given in the
same paragraph.

0w Own usaecrwwu pasOouwuw. Ow rpann u numun musww

mworo nmneu. Bcex yOurwx um wa cyme u as mope cwuranoca

copow nym. Ow naawo aoopymun nporua ceOw acex nmneu a
Acxanowe u ace acwanowuw panoaanuca, wro Awacrac,

 

175

waxowen, nonmaw u omunanu ero waswu. (XXX, 38)
This is a purely factual description. It is, of course,
negative, but it is not emotionally charged and teeming with
epithets denoting universally repulsive characteristics. It
is worthy of note also that Tivurtij's description as soft
and flabby does not make him appear as much of a threat in
comparison to the strong, powerful, albeit grotesque

description of the negative hero Termosesov in Soborjane.

 

The story of Tenija in a role similar to that of Aza
follows. Instead of becoming a prostitute, however, she plays
the harp in order to earn enough money to feed her family.

She deems her purity to be of utmost importance and stead-
fastly refuses all offers to blemish it. Her most severe

test came from Milij, the official who has come to town to
prosecute Anastas. He is so enchanted by Tenija's beauty

that in a move reminiscent of the enchanted wanderer's tavern
scene in which he threw his money to the gypsy beauty, Milij
offered to pay Falolej's entire debt for but one night with
her. He constantly exerted pressure. In order to cut off
her only means of support, he imported several beautiful girls
who not only could play the harp as well as Tenija, but would
bestow favors upon the men as well. Milij also persuaded
Puplija. Falolej's mother, to try to disuade Tenija. Finally,
he worsened prison conditions so the other prisoners would
pressure Tenija to change her mind. The pressure began to
take its toll on Tenija's beauty. Like Aza, She was under-

going a transformation which would make her undesirable, not

176
only materially, but physically.

AS soon as the evil character of Milij is fully
established, Leskov reintroduces Anastas for comparative
purposes. When they first meet face to face, Anastas suggests
the truth that Leskov will develop. "1 am repulsive to you,
but maybe you yourself are even worse than 1." (XXX, 42)

In truth, he was. Milij's efforts were directed towards
making things as difficult for Tenija and her children as he
possibly could. He was rich. He was successful. He had
almost everything a person could desire physically. Yet here
he was, literally taking the bread from the mouths of
starving children. The feared Anastas, on the other hand,
being safely put away in the filthy prison, had lost all
human rights. He was given a small crust of bread to eat
and no more. Nonetheless, when he heard Tenija speak of her
plight to Falolej, he threw her his bread for the children.
It was a rare expression of humanitarianism on his part, and
he downplayed it as much as possible.

He acnomuwau moero umewu Oory,... H we aepm wuwawum

nercwum cxasxam, wO rw wanopaana mwe cepnne caoum

ropem--a rom ronbwo u neno! (XXX, 63)

Whatever the cause of the gift, the fact remains that when a
person was in need, Anastas gave.

This gift can be compared to another incident involving
Milij. When Milij first arrived in town, he approached the
prison where he first noticed Tenija. He assumed that She
was a poor Christian prisoner and he offered her assistance.

When she replied that she was not a Christian but the daughter

177
of a heathen sacrificial priest, Milij retorted: ”Now I
cannot offer you the help I had desired to give." (XXX, 43)
Tenija did not comprehend the connection between religious
preference and compassion. "Really, for the sake of Feodora
and your compassion, is it not all the same to offer
assistance to whomever needs itT'She asks. "No," answered
Milij. "We must first of all lend assistance to those of
our own faith, and then to those of other faiths." (XXX, 43)
This is the very same attitude that was expressed by Falolej
at the beginning of the story. In Falolej's case it led to
a loss of his entire fortune. In Milij's case it leads
ultimately to his death.

The story is brought to a climax when a decision is
reached to burn the prison, conveniently forgetting that
Falolej and Anastas were still inside. That decision was
made when it was discovered that Anastas's bandit friends
were tunneling into the prison in an attempt to free him. As
preparations were being made for the fire, Anastas told Tenija
where he had buried his bounty and told her she could have it
to buy out Falolej. She hurried to the spot, took the money
and returned just in time. Anastas's conversation with
Tenija prior to her going after the money indicates the
success of Tenija's example. "You are so good and faithful
that I became sorry for you. But I had never known before
how to feel sorry. I didn't know how comforting it is to
take pity on a man." (XXX, 80-81) Even though he was a

Christian in name, Milij never reached the point where he

 

178
too could know that comfort. As he stood directing the prison
burning, Anastas managed to reach the window and spit on
him, saying: "You are the greatest villain of Askalov."
(XXX, 85) At almost the same time members of Anastas's gang
appeared and killed Milij.

The town's attitude toward Anastas became more and more
favorable as they realized his basic goodness. Tenija noted:

Ow cnenan mworo sna, wO we yracun a cepnne caoem

cowanewuw; a xro ymeer wanera, ror ewe we mepra nnn

noOpou wuswu u cam coxanewuw nocrouw. (XXX, 86)

She added that the only ones who had given her good advice
during her tribulations were those who were totally unconcerned
with life. Falolej remembered a sermon he had once heard

in Damascus.

...wro cunawo anur wuswa, ror ee norepwer, a er we

nopowur em, ror ee we ronawo wauner nnw ceOw, wo u

mower nara cuny musww npyromy. (XXX, 86)

Falolej also recognized the error of his own earlier
attitudes. He now realized that by desiring riches, it is
impossible not to forget about true goodness. When he asked
Tenija what was the source of her early knowledge of these
facts, she took one of his hands and placed it on her heart.
With the other she pointed to the heavens.

The predominance of the Christian ideal must certainly
stand as the single most significant characteristic of both
the Holiday Tales and the Legends. The positive heroes who
are depicted in these cycles are perhaps the least complex of

any of the Leskovian heroes. They are even less complex than

some of the Righteous Men from the standpoint that the

 

179

Righteous Men in Tolstovkas are in their final form stripped

 

of everything except their goodness. They are left in a

most simplified state. Certainly Odnodum, Levga, Pigmej,
Brjanganinov, Golovan and most of the Others must be considered
more complex. They are busy considering some form of
socialistic Christianity or are engaged in the complex task

of reforming monasteries or whatever. Each has his own thing.

This does not mean that the Righteous Men in Tolstovkas are

 

less active than the Righteous Men. Not at all! However,

 

their work is more individual-oriented. Danila is
insignificant in many respects, and far more so than Odnodum,
for example, who is performing a service for the town of
Soligalib. Nonetheless, Danila is an ideal just the same.
His contribution in life consisted of helping one leper who
was going to die soon anyway and then giving advice to one

young man. That is it. Falolej, in Askalonskij zlodej did

 

even less. He did suffer a great deal and he did talk about
what he was going to do, but he didn't actually do anything.
Anastas the criminal did almost nothing in concrete terms.

He gave Tenija two old crusts of bread and told her where to
find the money he would never be able to use anyway. Aza did
something very nice for someone. She even suffered greatly
for it. But that gift was necessary. It was like Ermij's
gift. Neither could ever have become ideals as long as they
were in their original situations. What did they do after
they were Simplified? Ermij was a goat herder. Aza was a

prostitute. Fedos Ivanov stood around lecturing people about

180
their Sinful ways. Figura sold a few vegetables in the
market place after his simplification. What it all seems
to indicate is this: Leskov had somehow shifted his stress--
his search for Righteous Men in Russia really had not gone
as well as he had hoped. After all, is it not true that
he had found the majority of them in the 1820's and 1830's?
Where were his heroes of contemporary life?

Leskov was a practical man. He did not like people who
theorized but could not themselves practice what they
preached. Nowhere is this made plainer than in a statement
attributed to him by Faresov toward the end of the 1880's.

Ax, wawaw sro npopowecwaw wwura Hewyna! Benb aor

aropou pas, a caoew wuswu, w aumy nepen COOOu rex

we nerwux nmneu, yanewewwwx reopueu, no we woropwx

wenasw nonowuracw. 3neca we auwoaarw ywurenw: npemne

Pepnew u Hepwwmeacwuu, a renepb H. Toncrou....

Toncroanw--wemwowwo wume wurunucroa, wo xapaxrep

ror we.5
It was not the Nihilists to whom he was opposed. It was the
"mad dogs" whose appearance was the same as the Nihilists,

as he pointed out in his article "Nikolaj Gavrilovié

V .
Cernygevskij v ego romane Cto delat'."56 T. S. Sal'nikova

 

correctly pointed out that the problem is merely one of

terminology.57

If one is to lump the chaff as well as the
grain in a general term "Nihilist," then Leskov would have to

be considered an Antinihilist. If, however, we are speaking

SSFaresov, 316.

56Leskov, Sobranie, X, 21.

 

. 57T. s. Sal'nikova, "Stat'ja N. s. Leskova o N. c.
Cernysevskom," Vgprosy russkoj literatury. NO. 3 (1970), p. 74.

181
only of CernySevskij's Raxmetov-ideal, or even his "ordinary
representatives of the new generation,"--Vera Pavlovna,
Kirsanov and Lopuxov,--Leskov was very sympathetic.

Memny rem, eme ao apemewa Hepwwmeacworo w cumnarusupoaan
newarwo ero repowm wO acerna wewaaunen srux-we camwx
repoea, worna npuxonuno x wum "ucnwrawue" u owu
womnpomerupoaanu coOom ucnoaenyemwe umu uneu.58

Leskov's attitude toward Tolstoj and his followers
follows a similar pattern. Leskov sympathized with Tolstoj

until the end of his life, but as time went by he did grow

increasingly disillusioned with Tolstoj's followers.59

During his last years Leskov made two revealing statements
regarding his tendency to oppose issues he had earlier
defended as soon as they become pOpular. The first statement

refers not only to himself, but to the purpose of all writers.

HHCBTEHB nonwew acerna HHTH HPOTHB POCHORCTBYMMHX
TGHEHHH, HMEH HYQMHH H Oonee KpHTquCKHH BBPHHH
wa HOHOXBHHH.

The other was more specific to his own eXperience.

H swam, wro owewa wemworue noumyr ao mwe coenuwewue
nayx nporuaynonomwwx wawan: raopwecxoro uneanusma

K CYpOBOFO KPHTHHHBMa--CHYKHBMHX HCTOHHHKOM BCHKHX

58Faresov, pp. 406-407.
SS-)See Edgerton, ”Nikolaj Leskov: The Intellectual Develop-
ment of a Literary Nonconformist," p. 398. Edgerton cites the
misinterpretations of Leonid Grossman (pp. 113-14) and Pierre
Kovalevsky (N. S. Leskov: peintre m3connu de la vie nationale
russe (Paris, 1925), p. 84) of Leskov's Zimnij den' as being
critical of Tolstoj and documents Leskov's accord with
Tolstoj's views to within two days of his death. This
conclusion is borne out by Faresov as well in his discussions

on Leskov's relationship to Tolstoj and his followers (pp. 98-
121 and 307-24).

 

60Faresov, p. 398.

 

182

wenopasymewuu oOO mwe. nnewwwca uneanawou cropowon

wawOu-nuOo napruu, w cwopo orwpwaan ee cnane

cropoww u men nporua wux.... ch wuswa npuxonunoca

unru "nporua rewewuu".61
The source of the title of Faresov's study is readily
apparent as is its significance. Leskov was not bound by
loyalty to his teachers to accept theira movements and
followers in £333. The original fascination with the
movement soon gave way to its more sober and less idealistic
realities.

Leskov's eventual disillusionment with the contemporary
moral situation during his search for Righteous Men is not
surprising when viewed in the light of these statements. After
coming to the realization that the situation was worsening,
the aim of his works became different and his heroes became
more moralistic and concerned with the meaning of life. It
is possible that the chest pains he was to suffer for the
last five years of his life may also have contributed to
an increased concern with his purpose. On April 8, 1894
Leskov wrote letters to both Tolstoj and to his friend
Mixail Osipoviz Men'Sikov. The letters were similar. In

both Leskov defined his goal in literature in terms of a

negative societal situation. There is not trace of his search

 

for Righteous Men.

H cmepwn mou cunw w oxuwyn rnasom paOory, u yaunan wax
pas ro, wro aunen KaynbOax: "Buwy, wro a xpame roprymr

u wro roproanw memaer Owra a xpame romy, uro nonwwo Owra
ram". H nowwn w, wro npewne acero wano awrwara roprymmux
a xpame u awmecru sa wumu ux mycop, u rorna, worna

61Faresov, p. 408.

183

ropwuna Oyner nonmerewa w nocrnawa, --npuner a wee ror,
womy noaneer wucrora, u wer emy oOmewuw c nponammumu

u noxynammumu. H w asnn merny u ace awmeram mycop u
rowm w awxony roproauea, u nowuram sro sa moe neno,
woropoe w ymem u mory nenara, rorna wax npyroro,
Oonbmero, n we ymem nenara u ecnu Ow aswncn sa wero,

rO cnenan Ow erO xyno u we npuwec Ow name u row nonasw,
woropym, mower Owra, npuwec, noranwuaaw roproanea u
awOpacwaaw ux nomerw sa nepxoawwu nopor. O
newrenawocru caoeu w nyman raw u raw ee u aeny. u
wuwero Oonee xpynworo u nonesworo w nenara we ymem

u we mory.62

There are many factors at work on Leskov's psyche at this
time. Leskov is speaking here of his efforts to blow the
chaff out of another organization, the official Russian
Orthodox Church. We saw evidence of this primarily in the
stories included in the Holiday Tales and the Legends. It
can be seen also in some of his other comparatively late

. vv . . . . -
stories such as Polunoscniki. In more isolated instances

 

the trend can be traced back even further to such stories as

Soborjane. What Leskov suggests in his statement of purpose,

 

however, is that his goal has been the improvement of a

situation through criticism of the evil he sees. The purpose

 

of the cycle of the Righteous Men was expressed in terms
diametrically opposed to this. He was not criticising
anything. He was, instead, extolling the virtues of a
particular group of men.

In the Holiday Tales and Legends Leskov was criticising.
He was not just criticising the official church, but
contemporary morality. Faresov provides the link between
an expressed purpose of cleansing the temple and an implied

62Letter to Men'gikov, April 8, 1894 in Sobranie, x1, 581.

 

184

purpose of cleansing the contemporary scene.

He Oes uwrepecwo rawme acnomwura, uro nureparypa

awnauraer unean, wax cynam wan coapemewwocram u

ywaswaaer wa nporuaynonowwocra mewny aenuxumu

uennmw sroro uneana u wuswam. nowyacraoaara

nucrapmowum a wuswu u aonnorura ee a xynowecraewwwe

OOpasw weaosmowwo Oes crpanawuu. A memny rem

norpeOwocra rapmowuwecwou muswu wanwercw npeoOnanammeu

weprou wpynworo ranawra u em onwou nucarena moryw.63

Further evidence that Leskov was actually criticising
the contemporary scene and thereby attempting to educate his
readers can be seen from the following incident: As a
twelve volume edition of Leskov's works was being published
from 1889 on, Leskov was pleased with the success it enjoyed
based upon sales. However, when the eleventh volume came
out, it simply did not move. Leskov was very troubled by

this fact. This volume contained some of his Legends as

well as Pustoplja§y_from the Holiday Tales.

 

Towwo we swamr, wro ecrb raxow onuwwanuarwu rom.
A aenb, sror rom coacem opuruwanbwwu, coacem we
noxom wa anrue.... [Bru npousaenewuw] awwomeww
mwom sa nocnenwue ronw, worna H cam swawurenbwo
usmewuncw u mow asrnwn wa muswa cran aosawmewwee
u Onume x xpucruawcwomy uneany.64

When Faresov suggested that the lag in sales was probably
due to the fact that the volume was ignored by the critics,
Leskov agreed, adding that just as they had ignored his
prediction that "the Nihilists would disintegrate into

apostates, so now my indication of the deviation of our life

from the Christian ideal receives no sympathy."65

63Faresov, p. 400.

64Ibid., p. 378

651bid., p. 379

185

As the little insignificant heroes of the Holiday Tales
and Legends set about doing their little insignificant tasks,
Leskov is showing his contemporaries how little is really
necessary to be pleasing to God. He goes so far as to
create a generation of these "humanized" peOple. Here are
the heroes he thought would bring him immortality. Here are
the ideas that would live on forever, despite the lack of
artistry in their presentations.66 The small insignificant
people are not intended to be nearly as insignificant as they
appear. Taken in this light, it is possible to agree with
Edgerton's contention that ”Leskov anticipated Tolstoj's
belief that men who had been transformed individually by
the teachings of Jesus could and should set about to
transform society."67

The fact remains, however, that even if the ultimate
goal is the transformation of society, it will take an entire
army of Danilas to accomplish that feat. I seriously doubt
that Leskov in all his practicality ever eXpected such an
overwhelming transformation to take place. We must keep in
mind that Leskov, who in all sincerity advocated the superior-
ity of practice over theory, was sometimes forced by that

very same practicality to accept a modified version of his

own theories or those in which he believed. Thus, he could

66See citation in Introduction, p. 13.

67Edgerton, "Leskov and Tolstoy: Two Literary Heretics,"
American Slavic and East European Review, XII, No. 4 (1953),
528.

 

186

identify with Tolstoj's primitivism until his floors were
tracked up once too often.68 Furthermore, he could advocate
the essential nature of the simplification process
throughout his latter works as we have seen, and still say
in a conversation:

Kaxou ywac...ecnu Ow acw anacra us pyw uwrennurewnuu

nepemna x crarcwum coaerwuxam r. Menpuwa, a

uwrennurewrwwe nmnu npuwnnuca Ow naxara semnm y

Bwrenarapnra unu Toncroro.69
In rational moments such as these, I am quite sure that
Leskov would be able to assess his impact correctly.

Finally, a word about the last days of Leskov's life
seems relevant. Since there was no significant change in
the positive heroes of the works he completed just before his
death, there was no need to bring them into this study.
Leskov himself became gloomier in his outlook on life as a

result of his sickly condition. This can be seen in the

story Zimnij den', one of his last works. The title itself

 

suggests the gloom of the work, but that mood is contrasted
by the uncompromising natures of the two positive heroes,
Lidija Pavlovna and the servant girl, Fedora. They embody

the high principles of the Righteous Men in Tolstovkas.

 

Matters of the soul always take precedence over matters of
the flesh. Responding to the question of hermistress as to

what is more important than one's stomach or head, Fedora

68See above, p. 152.

69Faresov, p. 313.

187
replies:

nyma wenoaexa. H wenam umera mom coaecra acerna
a nopwnxe. (XXVIII, 125)

Suffering is not only intrinsically good, but extrinsically
so:
Onwawo raw cxasawo: wano panoaaracn, xorna repnum
rowewue sa npaany, u a camom nene, sro oqewa
nomoraer pacnopwwewum uneu.(XXVIII, 134)
One's purpose in life remains the same: to serve others'
needs. After being ridiculed for kneading a peasants
posterior to relieve an affliction of the sciatic nerve,

Lidija retorts:

Pyxu naww we nnw roro, wroOw ux nonenoaara, a nnn
roro, erO owu cnywunu nmnwm wa nonasy. (XXVIII, 145)

This was the philosophy that Leskov took to the grave., Just
two days before his death he was interviewed for a literary
series, "Kak rabotajut naSi pisateli" (How do our Writers
Work"). He remarked on the lack of humility expressed by a
number of contemporary writers and added his final words:

H anpowem, cywy no ceOe, wro ecnu Ow npu rex
weynoOcraax, cpenu xoropwx n npowun mom nureparypwym
stwa, w nosaonun Ow ceOe mura nomupe, rO mwe
npumnoca Ow owewa xyno. A raw wax u sromy oOwuam

we cnenoaan, a nun cxpomwo, ro n we samerun caoux
wymn u panu ux an a wem u an nepen wem we nocrynancn.
Xenam raw u yuru orcmna.70

\
701. Em, "Kak rabotajut nagi pisateli," Novosti i
birzevaja gazeta, No. 49 (1895) as reprinted in Russkie
pisateli o Iiteraturnom trude, III, 205.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

The twenty one stories examined in this study represent
about one fifth of Leskov's published works. They provide
a fair representation of Leskov's family of positive heroes,
drawing examples from each of his literary phases, but do
not pretend to include all of Leskov's positive heroes. The
list of positive heroes in his works is endless, attesting
to the significance of the theme to Leskov himself.

The prime purpose of the study was to describe the
positive heroes of each of Leskov's literary periods and
trace their metamorphosis throughout his literary career.

In doing so, we have centered on the intricasies of detail
through which Leskov's attitudes toward his heroes are
expressed, and the evolution of his utilization of details

as his views of the purpose of literature, the responsibility
of the writer and the moral status of society changed. It
was found that his personal view of the ideal did not change
significantly in his last years, while his faith in the
success of a descriptive ideal to a society he viewed as
being in a state of moral deterioration did wane, and his
methods of portraying the ideal changed markedly.

Leskov's literary life can be divided into three
segments. The first period, lasting from the time of his
entry into literature in 1861 until about 1875, was a period

188

189
of difficulty for Leskov. He felt wronged by the publishing
difficulties he faced as a result of Dmitrij Pisarev's
pronouncement that no journal should print his works. His
search for self at a time when extreme views dominated the
political and literary scenes was complicated by a self-
defeating sense of pride and prevented a crystallization of
his views. Perceiving the role of literature as accusatory
of social ills during this time, Leskov created heroes who
interact on given societal issues, evoking a positive-
negative judgement on the issue more so than on the hero.

During the middle years of the 1870's Leskov settled
on a literary direction which he was to pursue for the
remainder of his life. He conceived an ideal based on_
Christian principles and proceeded to describe it to the
reading public in the form of a description of various
Righteous Men. The basic character of this ideal remained
the same until Leskov's death in 1895.

During the 1880's Leskov became greatly involved with
the moral teachings of Lev Tolstoj. As Lottridge concludes,
this experience does not represent a digression from, but a
culmination of the natural development of Leskov's own moral
vision.71 However, Leskov's writings from this time on do
display a number of features unique to the final years of
his life and Should be viewed as a separate phase of his

second literary period. One of the contributions of this

713tephen Lottridge, "Nikolaj Semenovig Leskov's Prolog
Tales," pp. 185-186. '

190
study is to pinpoint the distinctions between Leskov's

Righteous Man as described in Chapter Two and his Righteous

Man in a Tolstovka as described in Chapter Three.

 

In his dictionary Dal' defines a righteous man as one
who is without sin--one who acts in accordance with the
precepts of God's law. Leskov uses Christ's Sermon on the
Mount as recorded in Matthew 5-7 to be the essence of God's
law and the ultimate measure of righteousness. A summary
of Christ's teachings as expressed on the mount provides the
behavioural motivation for Leskov's Righteous Men. They all
are meek (Matthew 5:5); hunger and thirst after
righteousness (5:6); are merciful (5:7); are pure of heart
(5:8); are peacemakers (5:9); are persecuted for righteous-
ness' sake (5:10);and let their lights shine before men
(5:16). None of the Righteous Men become angry with their
brothers (5:22); lust after women (5:28); take oaths (5:34);
or resist evil (5:39). They do not do their righteousness
before men to be seen of them (6:1); give alms, pray or fast
in public (6:4, 6:6, 6:16). They do not lay up treasures for
themselves on earth (6:19). Neither are they anxious for
their lives or for what they shall eat, drink or put on
(6:25). They do not judge others (7:1); they do unto others
as they would have others do unto them (7:12); and finally,
as exemplified by Kiriak who accurately perceived the sorry
results of previous missionary work, they recognize the

quality of a tree by the fruits it bears (7:20).

Since this characterization fits both the Righteous Man

191

and the Righteous Man in a Tolstovka, the organic link

 

between the two variants is affirmed. As indicated by the
discussion in Chapter Three, however, a number of additional

requirements were demanded of the Righteous Man in a Tolstovka

 

which had not previously been deemed necessary for the

earlier Righteous Man. Foremost amongst the new requirements

 

was the need for the Righteous Man in a Tolstovka to endure
more physical pain and suffering than had his predecessor.
Frequently the discomfort he was forced to bear was depicted
as part of his complex transformation to a state of
righteousness.

Transformation itself was a new requirement which Leskov

imposed for the first time on his Righteous Man in a Tolstovka.

 

It seems to have come into effect as a requirement at about
the time of the appearance of Leskov's article Luggij

bogomolec in 1886. It was a definite part of Skomorox

 

 

Pamfalon which appeared later that same year and of all

 

subsequent Holiday Tales and Legends. In its earliest form
the transformation of a secondary positive hero was
precipitated by the example of the primary positive hero.
Thus Pamfalon's example was the factor most responsible for

the final transformation of both Ermij and Magna in Skomorox

 

. «.. .
Pamfalon. Even prior to LUESIJ bogomolec the transformation

 

 

of Leskov's uncle by XrapoSka in the Holiday Tale Zver' and
the attitude changes of the townspeople toward Selivan in
Pugalo anticipate the requirement as it later developed.

Transformation as required by Leskov in his Righteous

192

Man in a Tolstovka was not, in its mature form, a mere

 

betterment of the hero's attitude or behaviour. From

Figura on, the demand was for a hero's transformation

through a process of simplification. He was required to

give up all earthly pleasures including riches and rank and
in a most simplified state devote himself exclusively to

the service of mankind. The transformation either of self

or of secondary heroes involved a Specific Christian
principle or series of principles which served as the text of
the sermon or moral of the story. A recapitulation of the
moral themes of each of the final stories indicates the
predominance of themes taken directly from Christ's teachings:
Through Koza, the author cautioned against lying, stealing,
taking oaths; Leskov further advocated combatting the forces
of evil and issued the general command to be righteous.
XrapoSka taught Christian love, compassion and obedience.
Selivan's honesty and patience in enduring the evil rumors
which were spread about him were sufficient to overcome the
forces of evil. This story also showed that superstition

was only a stumbling block to Christian love, and it must

be overcome.

Figura embodied the Golden Rule. He showed true
Christian compassion by literally turning the other cheek.
Fedos Ivanov underwent a great amount of persecution for his
ministry of Christian love and sharing. Both Ermij and
Magna rose to the status of ideals from antithetical positions

through association with Pamfalon. Together they touch on

 

193
perhaps the greatest number of Christian teachings in any
single story from either of the two cycles. Pamfalon's
honesty and his ability to conduct himself from the heart,
that is, with a pure, functioning conscience is regarded as
desirable. His readiness to give with no strings attached
to whomever has a need, contrasts to Ermij's gift given in
the manner of the Pharisees, for all to see. Magna and
Ermij as well as Pamfalon illustrate the danger of laying
up treasures on earth, and all three are subjected to
untold persecution, making them blessed in the eyes of the
Lord. Finally, both Ermij and Magna learn the truth of the
command to judge not their fellow man.

Some of the same teachings are mirrored by Aza. The
importance of Christian giving and the danger of both
judging others and of possessing riches is supplemented by
an attempt to cleanse the temple of some of its traders and
their garbage. A further attempt is made through Danila
who also embodies Christian service and a pure conscience.
Then, in the last Legend, the heathen Tenija serves as the
thesis, actually outdoing the Christians themselves.
Together with Falolej and Anastas they express the value of
compassion, conscience, selflessness, readiness to help those
in need, honesty and faithfulness. The danger Of riches too
is again reiterated.

The predominance of the biblical themes enshrouds the

stories of the Righteous Men in Tolstovkas with religious

 

overtones almost completely lacking in both the earlier tales

194
of the Righteous Men and in the stories of their precursors.
The most religious of the Righteous Men were Brjanganinov
and Cixazev, contemporaries of the Righteous Men in
Tolstovkas. Religion as it existed in the positive heroes
of Leskov's first literary period was never an all-consuming
force. Even the Cathedral Folk, intimately connected with
religion by profession, are not fully devoured by it. They
are more complex and complete as literary figures and can
sometimes be seen doing such marginally Christian things as
sneaking a smoke, chasing a Nihilist, attending parties, or
swimming nude in the river. What started out to be a
panoramic view of religion in context by Leskov in his first
literary period, focused down more and more closely as he
next examined selected virtuous people and finally concentrat-
ed on the virtues themselves.

Leskov's shift in emphasis from the recommendation of
an actual person embodying a number of ideal qualities to
recommending certain qualities as desirable for any person
is a subtle but noteworthy evolution of his approach. The
decrease in the hero's intrinsic value as an identity is
evidenced by the decreasing need Leskov felt to supply his
positive heroes with distinct physical characteristics. We
have observed throughout the study from the very beginning
that Leskov developed a system of type casting his heroes.
He used phrenological indicators of mental ability as well
as the well-known stereotype of equating great physical

size with limited mental powers and vice versa. This trend

195
finally broke down during this final phase as he de-
emphasized and depersonalized the hero in favor of the ideas
his existence expressed.

Closely connected with the de-emphasis of the hero is
Leskov's evolution toward a universality of impact throughout
his literary career. The positive heroes of his first
literary period, while operating seemingly in more Space
than any of his later heroes, are curiously the most
tOpical. Ovcebyk, Tuberozov, Axilla, Fljagin, and Kiriak
roamed miles and miles about Russia. As a group they covered
almost the entire length and breadth of the country,
experiencing a wide variety of incidents. Their scope,
however, was narrow-~limited to an issue.

Their successors, the Righteous Men, were on the one
hand more restricted to a given town or geographical area,
but embodied principles of good recognizable to all of
humanity. As we saw particularly in Odnodum, Leskov utilized
even the isolation and one-sidedness of his hero to create
the illusion of timelessness and placelessness for its
universal impact.

Finally, he stripped the Righteous Man in a Tolstovka

 

bare and let the principles stand for themselves, thus
removing all Obstacles to a universal comprehension of his
stories. Even the events which filled the lives of the early
positive heroes are withheld from the later stories as
superfluous and hinderances to a firm understanding Of the

moral lesson being presented.

196

The transformation undergone by the positive heroes
through which the moral lesson was presented in Leskov's
final literary phase was totally lacking in the Righteous
Men. These men were depicted by Leskov as ready-made models,
examples of people who lived good lives as Leskov understood
the meaning of good. A transformation of sorts, or a
development, was a constituent part of Leskov's early stories.
from his first period. A critical point to remember in
this regard is that they did not develOp to an ideal

simplified state as had the Righteous Men in Tolstovkas.

 

Ovcebyk's development, on the contrary, was away from an
ideal state, and when he realized his error he committed
suicide. There was no evidence of simplification in his
story. Axilla's transformation, while progressing toward a
more positive state according to Leskov's values at the time,
proceeded from a point of simplicity to complexity, thus
again running contrary to the direction of the Righteous

Man in a Tolstovka. Ivan Fljagin also underwent a transform-

 

ation in accordance with Christ's teachings and certainly did
not involve the simplification process. Finally Kiriak,
though issue oriented, did himself undergo a transformation.
That transformation, though not depicted, was mentioned. It
involved his decision to cease doing mission work amongst

the heathen. This transformation is the closest of any of
Leskov's early positive heroes to that of the moral teachers
who appeared ten years hence.

The lack of transformation or even the requirement for

 

197
it in the Righteous Men illustrates their role as ready-
made models. Golovan best shows how these heroes go through
life unobstructed, confronting no one on anything. Their
purpose is not to challenge by confrontation. It is to
show what a person who is good actually looks like.

The Righteous Men were flanked on both sides by figures
who confront evil as they perceive it. In some cases they
are wrong as in the case of Ovcebyk. Nonetheless, he was
aggresive and had at least tried. Axilla was the same.
Until his transformation, he made little positive impact, but
no one tried harder than he. Tuberozov, Fljagin and Kiriak
also moved forward boldly in an attempt to challenge evil
as they saw it.

The Righteous Men in Tolstovkas did the same. Koza is

 

the leader of the group. He unhesitatingly approached the
wife of the governor to tell her she had made a mistake.
Throughout both the Holiday Tales and the Legends, similar
accounts can be cited. Fedos lectured the town of
PustOpljasov. Figura defended his actions to the General.
Danila challenged all the patriarchs.

The fact that the Righteous Men avoid confrontation
does not indicate that they were not active or aggressive.
The picture that so Often comes to mind when one thinks
of Leskov's mild-mannered, meek Christian heroes is that
they would probably run from their own shadows. Nothing
can be farther from the truth. Without exception each

one of Leskov's heroes would approach the Emperor himself

198
and lecture him on whatever subject. They relate to no
authority whatsoever, neither church nor secular, from a
point of subordination. This is true throughout each of
the three phases of Leskov's literary career, and in each
cycle of stories. They are confident that what they are
doing is right. Only Ovcebyk was shown that perhaps there
had been an error in his thinking. His aggressiveness was
excessive and led to his downfall. He was the only Leskovian
hero to resolutely demand things from others. The incident
in which Ovcebyk boldly seized his friend's boots without
asking illustrates his style. Leskov's heroes frequently
accept gifts when they are offered and can be put to use,
and they typically aid any person they find in need, but no
other positive hero approaches the impertinence of Ovcebyk.
Another weakness which appeared in Ovcebyk and

contributed to his suicide was his attitude toward women.
In theory he downgraded the role of women. He found them to
be weak and therefore unable to function as revolutionary
leaders. Since a revolution was the only thing of importance,
there was no place for them. In this story Leskov depicted
a good, kind and active woman in order to counteract that
view. As a result, Ovcebyk began to question his former
attitudes.

Although there have been few women in the stories we
have used, when they do appear, they are treated with great
sympathy. Besides Nastas'ja Petrovna Sviridova, described

as uncommonly gracious and helpful to Ovcebyk, Tuberozov's

199

wife appears with Similar positive characteristics in

 

Soborjane. The gypsy maiden GruSa in OEarovannyj strannik
is also depicted as morally and intellectually superior to
the prince she marries.

In the tales of the Righteous Men, the only women
depicted are Odnodum's wife and his mother. There is some
mention of other women, but none are described. Both women
in Odnodum's life are paragons of virtue, surpassing in

quality all other figures including perhaps the central hero.

 

Finally, in the last series of stories, we see a woman
in the central role for the first time. NO male hero is
ever made to endure as much as is she, and yet she does it
nobly. This is true also of all the other heroines from the
Legends. Magna, Azella and Tenija were all equally as
sympathetically treated by the author. Faresov is correct
in contending that Leskov's treatment of women places them
superior in all ways to their male counterparts.72

Leskov, like Dostoevskij and Tolstoj, would make an
interesting subject for Freudian analysis. His works
contain numerous cryptic examples of unconscious and
conscious sexual conflicts and narcissistic battles between
the ego ideal and self. The respected German literary

critic Walter Benjamin regards the continence of Leskov's

Righteous Men as becoming "... the elemental counterpoise

to uncontrolled lust ... personified in Lady Macbeth of

 

72Faresov, p. 313.

200
Mzensk."73 Such a study could cast meaningful light on the
asexual and possibly even antisexual nature of Leskov's
positive heroes frOm Ovcebyk, whose infatuation with the
wife of another man was a definite factor in his suicide,
right through Leskov's latest heroes such as Lidija

Pavlovna in Zimnij den', whose satisfaction with single

 

life contrasted sharply with the depraved sexual attitudes
of most of the other characters in the story. Although
the scope of such an inquiry is far too broad to be
encompassed in this study, it is a worthy subject for
further investigation.

A final summation of Leskov's literary life shows his
early search for positive heroes within the bounds of specific
political and religious issues and dictated by forces outside
himself giving way to a confident depiction of an ideal that
fulfilled his own concept of righteousness. Throughout his
second literary period, his focus was on a positive
presentation of the ideal. Interaction with negative
phenomena in society was non-accusatory in nature and both
subordinate and augmentative to the description of the
Leskovian Christian, the Righteous Man in his purest form.

Finally, Leskov determined descriptive ideals to be
inadequate to fulfill the needs of society and he returned
to accusatory literature as a means of developing the

qualities necessary for righteousness. Direct ministry

73Walter Benjamin, "The Storyteller," Illuminations,
trans. Harry Zohn (New York, 1968), p. 104.

201
eXpressed in religious terms through meticulously developed
transformations contrasting sharply with the descriptive
ideals embodied in his earlier Righteous Men in no way
implies a change in Leskov's own concept of the ideal.
In both of his final two phases the concept remains the same.
At the time he depicted the Righteous Men, he believed that
the example they presented was sufficient to bring about
moral change in society. When that proved ineffective, he
led the reader through the process of Leskovian Christian-
ization, until he saw even that as fruitless.

Within a few months of his death, Leskov expressed his
despair in a statement replete with the tone of a frustrated
parent who has gone to great lengths to bring up his child
right, only to discover in old age that a lifetime of effort

had borne no fruit.

Mow nocnenwue npousaenewuw O pyccwom oOmecrae
aecama wecrowu... Bru aemu we wpaawrcw nyOnuwe
sa uuwusm u npnmory. Ha w u we xoqy wpaauracw
nyOnuwe. Hycra owa XOTb naaurcw moumu paccxasamu
na wuraer. H swam wem wpaauracw eu,.wo w Oonbme
we xowy wpaauracn. H xoqy Ouweaara ee u myqura.
Pomaw crawoaurcw auwurenawwm axrom wan muswam.74
Leskov's cycle came to a natural conclusion. His
predilection for practical solutions to societal
difficulties would have prevented him from indulging in
the extraterrestrial escape of the upcoming generation of
mystics and "decadents." His death early in 1895 was

fitting in its timeliness.

74Faresov, p. 382.

B I BLIOGRAPIIY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary Sources

Leskov, N. S. Sobranie soEinenij. 12 Vols. Petersburg, 1889-‘
1896.

 

Leskov, N. S. Polnoe sobranie soEinenij. 3rd ed., 36 Vols.
Petersburg, 1902-1903.

 

Leskov, N. S. Sobranie soEinenij. ll Vols. Moscow, 1956-1958.

 

Leskov, N. S. "O gerojax i pravednikax. " Cerkovno-
obséestvennyj vestnik. No. 129, October 28,1881,

p. S.

 

 

II. Secondary Sources

 

Abramovié, D. 1., ed. Pis'ma russkixpisatelej k A. S.
Suvorinu. Leningrad, 1928: pp.—57-86.

 

 

Abramovic, N. Ja. "Misticism v tvorcestve Leskova."
Literaturno- kriticeskie ocerki. Kn. l. Petersburg,
I909, pp. 227:37.

 

Afonin, L. N. "Zabytaja stat'ja N. S. Leskova of Turgeneve."
Turgenevskij sbornik. III. Leningrad, 1968,
pp. 188-96.

 

Al'tman, M. S. "Russkie istoriki--prototipy literaturnyx
geroev." Istorija SSSR. No. 3 (1971), pp. 139-47.

 

Aman, Thomas Lee. "Structural Features of Leskov's Soborjane
and his Stories of the 1860's." Unpublished”Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Toronto, 1968.

Amfiteatrov, A. V. ”N. S. Leskov," Sobranie soEinenij. XXII.
Petersburg, 1914, 327-44.

Antonoviz, M. A. "Asmodej nasego vremeni. " Literaturno-
kriticeskie stat'i . Ed. G. E. Tamarcenko. MOscow,
1963, pp. 35- 93.

 

 

202

 

203

Antonovic, M. A. "Mistiko- asketiceskij roman." Literaturno-

kriticeskie stat'i. Ed. G. E. Tamarcenko. Moscow,
I963, pp. 7396- 448.

 

Apostolov, N. N. "L. N. Tolstoj i N. S. Leskov. " Lev Tolstoj
i ego sputniki. Moscow, 1928, pp. 218- 25.

 

 

Azbukin, V. N. V"K voprosu o stanovlenii anticerkovnoj temy
vvtvorcestve N. S. Leskova 70- -x, nacala 80- -x godov. "
Ucenye zapiski tomskogo gosudarstvenn_go universiteta
imeni V. V.Kuj§yseva. No. 153 (1960), pp. 27-38.

"Kritika duxovenstva i pravoslavnoj cerkvi v
ocerkax N. S. Leskova Meloci arxierejskoj zizni. "

Ucenye zapiski tomsk_go gosudarstvennogo universiteta
imeni’V. V. ijbyseva. 'No. 35 (1960), pp. 134- 40.

 

 

"MeloEi arxierejskoj zizni N. S. Leskova." UEenye
zapiski tomskogogosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni
V. V. KujbySeva. No. 42 (1962), pp. 35945.

 

 

"Cerkov'i duxovenstvo v izobrazenii N. S. Leskova."
Ezegodnik muzeja istorii religii i ateizma. VI.
Moscow, 1962, 305-19.

 

 

"Obscestvenno- literaturnaja bor'bavvokrug Melocej
arxierejskoj zizni N. S. Leskova. " Ucenye zapis i

tomskggo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni V. V.
KujbySeva.iNo. 48 (1964), pp. 95-105.

 

 

 

 

Baboreko, A. "Rukopis' Sobor'an N. S. Leskova." VOprosy
literatury. No. ). pp. 254-56.

 

Baluxatyj, S. D. , ed. Russkie pisateli 0 literature. II.
Leningrad, 1939, 290-320.

 

Barsom, Valentina. "The Misunderstood and Misinterpreted
Leskov: Leskov in Pre-Revolutionary Radical and
Soviet Literary Criticism." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969.

Batjuto, A, Io "PrimeEanija." in N. S. Leskov's Sobranie
socinenij. VIII. Moscow, 1958, 567-633.

 

 

Bazanov, V. "N. S. Leskov i literaturnaja polemika 60-x
godov." Iz literaturnoj polemiki 60- -x godov.
PetrozavodSk, 1941, pp. 99-171.

 

Benjamin, Walter. "The Storyteller." Illuminations. Ed.
Hannah Arendt. Tr. Harry Zohn. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1968, 83-109.

 

 

204

Bertenson, L. B. "K vospominanijam o Nikolae Semenovide

Leskove." Russkaja mysl'. XXXVI (October, 1915).
89-950

Biedermann, M. "Russischer Klerus: Eine Studie zu N. S.

Lesskow, Die Klerisei, eine Kleinstadtchronik."
OstkirchliCEe Studien. II (1953), 253-69.

Bogaevskaja, K. "O sobranii soEinenij N. S. Leskova."
Russkaja literatura. No. 3 (1959), pp. 215-21.

BogdanoviE, A. I. "Leskov-anekdotist." Gody pereloma 1895-
1906. Petersburg, 1908, pp. 76-84.

 

Bowman, Herbert E. Vissarion Belinski 1811-1848: A Study in

the Origins of Social Criticism in Russia. Cambridge:
Haryard University Press, 1954.

Braun, M. Der Kampf um die Wirklichkeit in der russischen
Literatur. GOttingen, 1958, pp. 39-43.

 

Bridgman, Richard. "Leskov Under the Bushel of Translation."
Texas Quarterly. IX. No. 3 (Autumn, 1966), 80-88.

Brombert, Victor, ed. The Hero in Literature. New York:
Fawcett World Library, 1969.

BuxStab, B. Ja. Rasskazy Leskova." in: N. S. Leskov.
Rasskazy. Leningrad, 1973, pp. 3-8.

. 3N. s. Leskov." in: N. s. Leskov. Sobranie soEinenil
v sesti tomax. I. Moscow, 1973, 3-42.

 

 

 

. "Ob istoEnikax LevSi N. S. Leskova." Russkaja
literatura. No. 1 (I964), pp. 49-64.

 

 

 

. "Primezanija." in: N. S. Leskov. Sobranie soEinenij.
VII. Moscow, 1958, 493-568.

 

 

. N. S. Leskov: Ukazatel' osnovnoj literatury.
Leningrad, 1948.

 

Bykov, P. V. "Bibliografija sozinenij N. S. Leskova: Za .
tridcat' let (1860-1889)." in: N. S. Leskov. Sobranie
socinenij. X. Petersburg, 1890, i-xxv;

 

 

. SiluEty dalekogoproSlogo. Ed. B. P. Koz'min.
Moscow, 1930.

 

Cejtlin, A. G. "Sjugetika antinigilistizeskogo romana."
Literatura i marksizm. Kn. II (1929), pp. 33-74.

205,

Cejtlin, M. A. "Analiz xudozestvennyx osobennostej romana
Leskova Soborjane." Ucenye zapiski moskovskogo

oblastnogo pedagogiceskogo instituta imeni N. K.
Krupskoj. LXVI (1958), 269-90.

 

 

 

V

Cerednikova, M. P, "O Sjuietnyx motivirovkax v povesti N. S.
Leskova Ocarovann ' strannik." Russkaja literatura.
No. 3 (1971), pp. II3-27. I

. "Ob istocnikax legendy N. S. Leskova Skomorox
Pamfalon." Russkaja narodnaja_proza. XIII. Leningrad,
1972,119-23.

 

 

Cudnova, L. "Satira N. S. Leskova 1890- -x godovv PolunosEniki."
Ucenye zapiski leningradskogopedagogiceSko5 o
instituta imeni A. I. Gercena. NO. 273 (195
pp. 119-38.

 

V
Cyzevskij, D. "Besprechungen von Marie Luise Rossler,

Nikolaj Leskov und seine Darstellung des religiosen
Menschen." Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie.
XVII. No. 2 (1941), 458162.

 

. "Leskov," in his Russische Literaturgeschichte des
19. Jahrhunderts. Der Realismus. Munich, 1967,.
pp. 93-1050

 

 

 

 

Danilov, V. V. "K biografii N. S. Leskova." Istorizeskij
vestnik. CXIV (October, 1908), 162-72.

 

Desnickij, V. A. "O knige A. Leskova." Literaturnyj
sovremennik. No. 3 (1937), pp. 153-‘55.

 

 

. "Krest'janskie rasskazy N. S. Leskova." UEenye
zapiski leningradskogo gosudarstvennogo
pedagogiceskogp instituta imeni A. I. Gercena. No. 14
(1938), pp. 179- 94.

 

 

 

V
. ”Predislovie.” in: Andrej Leskov. Zizn' Nikolaja
Leskova. Moscow, 1954, pp. iii-vii.

 

Domanovskij, L. V. "Primecanija." in: N. S. Leskov.
Sobranie socinenij. V. Moscow, 1957, 577-635.

 

Dostoevskij, F. M. Sobranie socinenij v desjati tomax. IX.
Moscow, 1958. ‘

 

Drugov, B. M. N. S. Leskov: 03erk tvorEestva. 2nd. ed.
Moscow, 19612

 

V
. "Posleslovija." in: N. S. Leskov. Zeleznaja volja.
Moscow, 1946, pp. 189—98.

 

Drugov,

206

B. M. "Leskov--master slova i sjuzeta." Literaturnaja
uEeba. No. 11 (1936), pp. 74- 92.

 

. "N. S. Leskov." in: N. S. Leskov. Izbrannye

 

 

socinenija v trex tomax. I. Petrozavodsk, 1952,
v- xX1x.

 

. "N. S. Leskov." in: N. S. Leskov, Izbrannye

 

 

socinenija. Moscow, 1937, v- xxvi.

 

. "A. M. Gor'kij o Leskove." Literaturnaja ugeba.

 

 

No. 6 (1941), pp. 21-43.

. V.
. ”Ger01ka russkoj zizni v tvorcestve Leskova."

 

Durylin,

in: N. S. Leskov. Povesti i rasskazy. Moscow, 1943,
pp. 3- 16.

 

S. "O religioznom tvorgestve N. S. Leskova."
Xristianskaja mysl'. No. 11 (1916), 73-86.

 

Edgerton, William B. "Missing Letters to Leskov: An Unsolved

Puzzle." Slavic Review. XXV. No. 1 (March, 1966),
121-32.

 

. "Leskov on Quakers in Russia." Bulletin of Friends

 

Historical Association. XL. No. 1 (1931), 3-15.

 

. "Leskov and Tolstoy: Two Literary Heretics."

 

American Slavic and East European Review. XII. No. 4
(1953), 524-34.

. "Nikolai Leskov: The Intellectual Development of

 

a Literary Nonconformist." Unpublished Ph.D
Dissertation, Columbia University, 1954.

. "Leskov and Russia's Slavic Brethern." American

 

Contributions to the Fourth International Conggess
of Slavicists: MOSCOW, September, 1958. 's-
Gravenhage: Mouton andTCo., 1958, pp. 51-74.

 

"Leskov's Trip Abroad in 1875: Four Unpublished

 

Eekman,

Letters to I. S. Gagarin." Indiana Slavic Studies
IV. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications
1967, 88-99.

Thomas A. "The Genesis of Leskov's Sobor‘ane."
California Slavic Studies. II (1963) I2I-45.

 

\
ijenbaum, B. M. "N. S. Leskov." proze. Leningrad, 1969.

. "K 100- letiju rozdenija M Leskova." in: N. S.

 

Leskov. Izbrannye socinenija. Moscow, 1931,
pp. xlv— lxii.

 

 

207

\ .

ijenbaum, B. M. "Leskov i literaturnoe narodniEestvo." Moj
vremennik. Slovesnost'. Nauka.'Kritika. Smes'.
Ieningrad, 1929, pp. 105-108.

. Review of N. S. Leskov: oEerk tvorEestva, by
A. L. VolynskijITKniga i revoljucija. No. 2
(1923), pp. 56-57. v—

 

 

 

. "Leskov i sovremennaja proza." Literatura. Teorija.
Kritika. POlemika. Leningrad, 1927, pp. 210725.

 

 

 

Evnin, F. I. N. S. Leskov. Moscow, 1945.

 

Faresov, A. I. "Umstvennye perelomy v dejatel'nosti N. S.
Leskova." Istorideskij vestnik. CXLIII, No. 3
(1916), 792-93.

. Protiv teEenij: N. S. Leskov. Ego zizn', soEinenija,
polemika i vospominanija o nem. Petersburg, 1904.

 

Fidler, F. F. "Literaturnye siluety, VII: N. S. Leskov."
Novoe slovo. No. 8 (1914), pp. 33-36.

 

Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel, New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1927.

 

Lo Gatto, E. "Leskov e l'ultimo Tolstoj," in his Storia
della litteratura russa contemporanea. Rome, 1958,
pp. 23-25. V

Gebel', V. A. "N. S. Leskov: k 125-1etiju SO dnja rogdenija."
Literatura v Skole. XVII. No. l (1956), 79-82.

 

. N. S. Leskov: V tvorgeskoj laboratorii. Moscow,
191:. Ft

 

. "Jazyk N. S. Leskova." Ugenye zapiski moskovskogg
gosudarstvennogopedagogifieskOgo instituta imeni V.
I. Lenina. Vyp. 2, pp. 193-218.

 

 

 

 

German, I. Z. "Protopop Avvakum v tvorgestve N. S. Leskova."
, Trudy otdela drevnerusskoj literatury instituta
russkoj literatury. XIV; MOSCOW, 1958, 404-497.

 

 

Gifford, H. The Hero of His Time: A Theme in Russian
Literature. LondOn: Edward Arnold, 1950.

 

. "Leskov and the Righteous Man." The Novel in

Russia: From Pushkin to Pasternak. New York: Harper
and Row, pp. 73-82.

 

 

Gol'cev, V. A. "N. S. Leskov (Iz vospominanij i perepiski)."
Itogi. Moscow, 1903, pp. 44-46.

208

Gollert, Ingeborg, "N. S. Leskovs Romanchronik Die Klerisei."

Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Free University of
Berlin, 1969.

 

Gorelov, A. A. "Pocerk mastera." in: N. S. Leskov. Levsa--
Rasskazy. Moscow, 1965, pp. 5- 17. ~

. "Tatarskie epizody Ocarovannogo strannika N. S.
Leskova i Istorija rossiJskaia V *TatisEeva."
Ucenye zapiski leningradgkggogosudarstvennogo

universiteta imeni A. A. Zdanova.fiNo. 355 (1971),
pp. 193 96.

 

 

. "Put' Nikolaja Leskova." in: N. S. Leskov. Povesti
i rasskazy. Moscow, 1966, pp. 5-24.

 

 

Gorjackina, M. S. Satira Leskova. Moscow, 1963.

 

Gor'kij, Maksim. "N. S. Leskov." Sobranie socinenija v
tridcati tomax. XXIV. Moscow, 1953, 228-37.

 

\

Gromov, P. P., and B. M. ijenbaum. "N. S. Leskov (gcerk
tvorcestva)." in: N. S. Leskov. Sobranie socinenij.
I. Moscow, 1956, v-lx.

 

Grossman, L. "Leskov." Bor'ba za still. Moscow, 1927,
pp. 203-26.

 

. "Leskov--pisate1'." in: N. S. Leskov. Izbrannye
rasskazy. Moscow, 1926, pp. 5-25.

 

 

 

V
. N. S. Leskov: Zizn'. Tvorcestvo. Poetika. Moscow,
1945.

 

Gudzij, N. K. "Tolstoj is Leskov." Iskusstvo. IV. Kn. 1-2
(1928), 95-128.

 

Gurevic, L Ja. "Iz vospominanij o N. S. Leskove." Literatura
i estetika. Moscow, 1912, pp. 295-301.

 

 

Gusev, S. S. "Moe znakomstvo s N. A. [sic] Leskovym."
Istoriceskij vestnik. CXVII (September, 1909), 933- 38.

Hofmiller, J. "Lesskow." Letzte Versuche. Munich, 1952,
pp. 80-106.

 

Ioffe, F. M. "Zametki M. Gor'kogo o tvorcestve N. S. Leskova."
Russkaia literatura. No. 2 (1968), pp. 22-35.

Kaleckij, P. I. "Leskov, Nikolaj Semenovic." in: Literaturnaja
Enciklopedija. VI. Moscow, 1932, 312- 19.

 

 

209

Kapustin, V. A. "Polozitel'nyj obraz v rasskazax N. 0.8
Leskova 70- 80 gg." Naucnye zapiski kievsko

gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni T. G. evcenko.
XVIII, No. 12 (1959), 29-46.

. "N. S. Leskov i problema pologitel'nogo obraza v
russkoj literature vtoroj poloviny XIX veka."

Unpublished Candidate Dissertation, Kiev University,
1950.

 

Koehler, L. "Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Russian Literary
Tradition." Russian Review. 11 (1967), 176-84.

 

Kudjurov, A. P. ”K voprosu o narodno- -poeticeskix istokax
Levsi N. S. Leskova." VOpros istorii i teorii
literatury. No. 4 (1968), pp. 102-12.

 

 

Ladyzenski%,B . "N. S. Leskov (K 30-1etiju ego konciny)."
ernoe vremja (Paris), May 14, 1925.

. "Neskol'ko certocek v russkoj literature."
Vecernoe vremja (Paris), August 14,1924.

 

Lavreckij, A. "Leskov kak satirik." Voprosy literatury.
No. 11 (1963), pp. 236-38.

 

. Belinskij, Eernysevskij, Dobroljubov v bor'be
za realizm. Moscow, 1941.

 

Lebedev, V. A. "Xronikal'nyj Eanr v tvorcestve N. S. Leskova."
Ucenye zapiski tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta
imeni V. V. Kujbyseva. No. 67 (1967), pp. 134- 46.

Lerner, N. O. "Nikolaj Semenovic Leskov." Istorija russkoj
literatury XIX v. Ed. D. N. Ovsjaniko-Kulikovskij.
IV. Petersburg, 1910. 207-29.

 

Leskov, A. N. "N. S. Leskov." Literaturnyj sovremennik.
No. 3 (1937), pp. 156-93.

 

. "Leskov o duxovenstve." Antireligioznik. No. 6
(1939), pp. 33-34.

 

 

. "Posleslovie." to "Na smert' Katkova." Zven'j .
III-IV (1924), 894-99.

 

. "Zizn' Nikolaja Leskova." in: N. S. Leskov.
Izbrannye socinenija. Moscow, 1945, pp. XVll-Xl.

 

 

. "Posleslovie." to "Zametki neizvestnogo." Zvezda.
No. 7 (1935), pp. 224-26.

 

V
. Zizn' Nikolaja Leskova: Po ego lignym, semejnym
i nesemejnym zapisjam i pamjatjam. Moscow, 1954.

 

210

Levandovskij, L. "N. S. Leskov v Kieve.” Russkaja literatura.
No. 3 (1963), pp. 104-1090

 

Litvin, E. S. "Fol'klornye istocniki Skaza o tu1' skom kosom
levse i o sta1' noj bloxe N. S. Leskova.“ RusSRiJ
fol'klor. 1. Moscow, 1956, 125- 34.

 

 

Lottridge, Stephen S. "SolEenicyn and Leskov." Russian

Lan ua e Triquarterly. No. 6 (Spring, 1973),
pp. 47§-89-

"Nikolaj Semenovic Leskov's Prologue Tales."
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University,
1970.

 

 

Luzanovskij, A. V. "O vide i zanre proizvedenij N. S. Leskova
o narode." Ucenye zapiski ivanovskogo gosudarstvennogo
pedagogicesEogo instituta. XXXVIII (1966), 167- 86.

 

. "Neopublikovannaja stat' ja N. S. Leskova o
tolstovskom ucenii." Russkaja literatura. No. 1
(1965), pp. 162- 67.

 

 

. "Sjuzet i fabula rasskazov Leskova vtoroj poloviny
70- 80 godov." Ucenye zapiski ivanovskogo
gosudarstvennogopedagogiceskogo instituta. XXXVIII
(1967), 57- 79.

 

 

 

Makedonov, A. "Problema geroja v estetike Belinskogo."
Literaturnyj kritik. No. 6 (1936), pp. 107-37.

 

Makseeva, N. A. "N. S. Leskov v poslednic gody svoej Eizni."
Russkaja mysl'. No. 10 (1908), pp. 172-86.

 

. "Pamjati N. S. Leskova." Moskovskij ezenedel'nik.
No. 42 (1908), pp. 43-54.

 

Mathewson, Rufus W. Jr. The Positive Hero in Russian
Literature. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1958.

 

. "The Soviet Hero and the Literary Heritage."
. American Slavic and East Eur0pean Journal. XII
No. 43(1953), 506-23.

 

McLean, Hugh. "Leskov and the Russian Superman." Midway
(Spring, 1968), 105-23.

. "A Contribution to the Revival of Leskov." Slavic
Review. XXII (December, 1963), 745-50.

 

. "Leskov and His Enigmatic Man." Russian Thought
and Politics. Vol. IV of Harvard Slavic Studies. Ed.
H. McLean. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957,
297-3220

 

 

211

McLean, Hugh. "Studies in the Life and Art of Leskov."

Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University,
1956.

Mejlax, B., ed. Russkiepisateli o literaturnom trude. III
Leningrad, 1955,193-229.

Men'sikov, M. "Xudozestvennaja propoved'. " Knizki nedeli.
No. 8 (February,1894), pp. 160- 83.

 

Mixajlova, N. G. "Tvorcestvo Leskova v svjazi s nekotorymi
obrazami narodnogo eposa." Vestnik moskovskogo
universiteta. No. 3 (1966), pp. 49- 57.

 

 

. "Narodnyj rasskazcik i literaturnéj povestvovatel'
v proze N. S. Leskova." Russkaja re '. No. 5 (1969),
pp. 20-26.

Mixajlovskij, N. K. "Literatura i zizn'. " Russkoe bogatstvo.
No. 6, part 2 (1897), pp. 97- 126.

 

. "Literatura i zizn'." Russkoe bogatstvo, No. 10,
part 2 (1897), pp. 161-95.

 

. "Literatura i zizn'. " Russkoe bogatstvo. No. 1
(1904), pp. 88-105.

 

 

. "Poslednie socinenija. II. Petersburg, 1905,
462-710

 

. "G. Sementkovskij o Leskove." Otkliki. II.
Petersburg, 1904, 100-20.

 

Mochulsky, Konstantin. DostoeVSky: His Life and Work. Tr.
Michael A. MinifiafiT_PTTnteton: Princeton University
Press, 1961.

Moser, Charles A. Antinihilism in the Russian Novel of the
1860's. ThE'HaguE? Mouton andrCo., 1964.

Mfiller, Erich. "Nilolaj Semjonowitsch Lesskow: Sein Leben
und Wirken." in N. S. Lesskov. Am Ende der Welt--
Gesammelte Werke. IX. Munich, 1927, 227-344.

 

Muratova, K. D. "Gor'kij i Leskov." Voprosy izucenija
russkoj literatury XIX-XX vv. Mfiscow, 1958,
pp. 253-590

 

Petrov, S. M. "N. S. Leskov." in: N. S. Leskov. Izbrannye
socinenija. Moscow, 1949, pp. 3-16.

 

 

. I. S. Turgenev: tvorceskij put'. Moscow, 1961.

 

212

Pustovojt, P. G. "K voprosu o razlicijax xudogestvennyx
metodov Turgeneva i Dostoevskogo." Voprosy russkoj
literatury. Vyp. 1 (1973), pp. 11-18.

 

 

Raevskij,vS. "Publicistika N. S. Leskova nacala 60-x godov."
Ucenye zapiski leningradskogo_gosudarstvennogo
da ogiéeskogo instituta imeni A. I. Gercena.
Bo. g2 (1958), pp. 137-63.

Rbssler, M. L. Nikolangeskov und seine Darstellungder
religiosenfiMenschen. Weimar, 1936.

Russell, J. G. K. "Leskov and His Quarrel with the Men of

the Sixties." Canadian Slavonic Papers. XII. No. 2
(1970), 108-27.

 

. "Leskov and Folklore." Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, Princeton University, 1971.

 

Sal'nikova, T. S. "O formirovanii metoda v rannem tvorcestve
N. S. Leskova (1860-1865).: Unpublished Can idate
Dissertation, L'vovskoexnasee voenno-politiceskoe

V. .Vv
uc111sce, 1972.

. "Stat'ja N. S. Leskova o N. G. Cernysevskom."
Voprosy russkoj literatury. Vyp. 3 (1970),
pp. 67-75.

 

 

. "Nekotorye problemy izucenija tvorEestva N. S.
Leskova." Voprosy russkoj literatury. Vyp. 3
(1967), pp. 64-70.

 

 

\l
Saltykov-Scedrin, M. E. "Povesti, ocerki i rasskazy M.
Stebnickogo." Polnoe sobranie socinenij. VII.
Moscow, 1937, 364-72.

 

Sementkovskij, R. I. "Nikolaj Semenovic Leskov: Kritiko-
biografiEeskij ocerk." in: N. S. Leskov. Polnoe
sobranie socinenij. I. Petersburg, 1902, 5-55.

Sergeenko, P. A. "Tolstoj i Leskov." Tolstoj i ego
sovremenniki. Moscow, 1911, pp. - .

Serman, I.VZ. "Primecanija." in: N. S. Leskov. Sobranie
socinenij. IV. Moscow, 1957, 515-57.

 

 

 

Sesterikov, S. P. "K bibliografii socinenij N. S. Leskova."
Izvestija otdelenija russkogojazyka i slovesnosti
Rossijskoj AkademiiINauk. XXX.Leningrad:1925,
268-510.

Setschkareff, V. N. S. Leskov: Sein Leben und sein Werk.
Wiesbaden, 1959.

 

 

 

 

213

Sljapkin, I. A. "K biografii N. S. Leskova." Russkaja
starina. LXXXIV. No. 12 (1895), 205-15.

 

Sofronov, N. "Kto podkoval bloxu." Moskva. No. 1 (1967),
pp. 213-14.

Sokolov, N. "Neizvestnaja stat'ja N. Leskova o M. Katkove."
"Russkaja literatura. N00 3 (1960), pp. 161-65.

 

Stoljarova, I. V. "Roman-xronika Leskova." Istorija russkogo
romana v dvux tomax. Ed. A. S. Busmin et_§l. II.
Mbscow, 1964,_416-38.

. "N. S. Leskov i Z iski oxotnika I. S. Turgeveva."
Naucnye doklady vysseJ sKon. No. 2 (1968),
pp. 16-28.

 

 

. "Neizvestnoe literaturnoe obozrenie N. S. Leskova,"

V . . .
Ucenye zap1sk1 1en1ngrads o o osudarstvenno o
universiteta imeni A. A: anova. o. 8),

pp. 224-29.

 

 

 

 

 

. "N. S. Leskov v BirE vyx vedomostjax i Vecernej

azete (1869-1871)." Ucenye zapiski lenin adskogo
gosu arstvennogo universiteta imeni A. A. Z anova.
No. 295 (1960), pp. 87:119.

 

 

. "N. S. Leskov v Russkom mire." Ucenye zapiski

omskogogosudarstvennogo pedagogiEéskogo instituta
imeni A. M. Gor'kogo} Vyp. 17 (1962), pp. 97-122.

 

 

 

 

. "Obscestvenno-literaturnaja pozicija N. S. Leskova
v konce 1860-x godov." Vestnik 1en1ngradskogg
universiteta. No. 2 (1961), pp. 112-22.

 

 

 

. ”Povest' N. S. Leskova, Ocarovannyj strannik."v
"Ucenye zapiski omskogo gosfidarstvenno o ‘eda ogiceskogo
instituta imeni A.*M. Gor‘kogo. Vyp. g1 (195%
pp. 64‘102. W

 

 

 

 

. "Russkie donkixoty v tvorcestve Nb S. Leskova."

. Russkaja literatura XIX-XX vekov. Ucenye zapiski

leninggadskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni
. . anova. No. 355 (1971), pp. 77-95.

 

 

 

v .
. "Povest' N. S. Leskova Zitie odnoj baby." 1n:
Russkaja i zarubeznaja literatura. Ed. I. V.
Stoljarova° Omsk, 1965, pp. 50-69.

 

 

. fiGamlet 1 Don Kixot, ob otklike N. S. Leskova na
rec' Turgeneva." Tur eneVskij sbornik. III.
Leningrad, 1968, 120-23.

 

 

214

Stoljarova, I. V. "N. S. Leskov i G. I. Uspenskij."
Russkaja literatura. No. 3 (1974), pp. 76-94.

Tamarcenko, G E. "Cto delat' Cernysevskogo i Nekuda

Leskova." VoproSy literatury. No. 9 (1972),
pp. 93- 110.

 

Troickij, V. Ju. "O xudozestvennom svoeobrazii legend M S.
Leskova, napisannyx po materialam prologa." Ucen e
zapiski moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicesfiogo
instituta’imeni‘V.“I.’Lenina. Vyp. 213. (1962),
ppo 302'24.

Vengerov, S. A. "Geroiceskij xarakter russkoj literatury."
Sobranie socinenij. III. Petersburg, 1911, 99- 205.

Vidueckaja, I. P. "Leskov <1 Gercene." Problemy izugenija
Gercena. Moscow, 1963, pp. 300-20.

 

Vinogradov, V. V. "Dostoevskij i Leskov." Russkaja literatura.
No. 1 (1961), pp. 63-84; No. 2 (1961), pp. 65-97.

 

 

Volynskij A. L. [Akim Flekser]. N. S. Leskov: Kriticeskij
06erk. Petersburg, 1898; reprinted as Carstvo
Karamazovyx: N. S. Leskov. Zametki. Pet tersBurg, 1901,
reprinted again as N. S. Leskov. Petrograd, 1923.

 

Vvedenskij, A. I. "Sovremennye literaturnée dejateli, II.
Nikolaj Semenovic Leskov." Istori eskijvestnik.
XL (May, 1890), 393- 406. 67

 

Xmelnickij, T. "Konec lisnego Eeloveka." Literaturnyj
sovremennik. No. 3 (1937), pp. 251-62.

 

 

Yarmolinsky Avrahm. Tur enev: The Man, his Art and his Age.
New’York: Coll1er Books, 1961.

Zajcev, Boris. "N. S. Le kov (K 100-1etiju rozdenija.
Zametki). " Vozrozdenie (Paris), No. 2347, November
5, 1931; No. 2352,November 10,1931.

 

Zajcev, K. "Problema i zagadka Leskova." Vozrozdenie
(Paris), No. 251, February 11, 1926.

 

Zelinskij, B. "Leskovs Legenden: Eine interpretierende
Einfuhrung." Die Welt der Slaven. XVI. No. 3
(1971), 301-19.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 03062 0623

S
E

M"
M"
U!
Y"
W!
Rllll'
W,
m"
U"

H

11117117777717

3 129