# Deep-read: Afterword to *The Kreutzer Sonata* («Послесловие к «Крейцеровой сонате»»)

Source extract: `extracts/v27_079_092_Posleslovie_k_Krejtserovoj_sonate.txt`
Provenance: PSS Tom 27, pp. 79–92 (Госиздат «Художественная литература», 1936). Modern orthography via `extract_tei.py --choice=reg`. ~4.3k words, complete.

All Russian below is copied verbatim from the extract (byte-verified by script). Line numbers refer to that file. Every translation is labelled "(working English)".

---

## 1. The structure of Tolstoy's argument

The Afterword is framed as a direct answer to a question readers put to him. It opens (line 9):

> Я получил и получаю много писем от незнакомых мне лиц, просящих меня объяснить в простых и ясных словах то, что я думаю о предмете написанного мною рассказа под заглавием «Крейцерова соната».

(working English) "I have received and keep receiving many letters from people unknown to me, asking me to explain in simple and clear words what I think about the subject of the story I wrote under the title *The Kreutzer Sonata*."

He then promises to state "сущность того, что я хотел сказать" — the essence of what he wanted to say — and "тех выводов, которые... можно сделать из него" — the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

The body has two movements:

**Movement A — five enumerated points (lines 11–55).** Tolstoy lays out a numbered sequence. Each point follows the same rhythm: (a) a description of a belief or practice in "нашем обществе" (our society); (b) the verdict "это нехорошо" / "я полагаю, что это нехорошо" (this is not good); (c) "Вывод же, который... сделать из этого" (the conclusion to be drawn). He closes each with a one-line tag. The tags are byte-present at lines 21, 29, 37, 43, 55:

> Это первое. — Это второе. — Это третье. — Это четвертое. — Это пятое.

(working English) "This is the first. — This is the second. — This is the third. — This is the fourth. — This is the fifth."

The five points, faithfully:

1. **Point One (lines 11–21).** Against the belief — "поддерживаемое ложной наукой" (supported by false science) — that sexual intercourse is necessary for health and that extramarital sex is natural and to be encouraged. Conclusion: abstinence (воздержание) is a duty for the unmarried; it is possible and not harmful to health.
2. **Point Two (lines 23–29).** Against treating carnal love as "поэтическое, возвышенное благо жизни" (a poetic, elevated good of life), which has made marital infidelity ordinary. Conclusion: the view of carnal love must change — it should be seen "как на унизительное для человека животное состояние" (as an animal state degrading to a human being), not celebrated in novels, verse, song, opera.
3. **Point Three (lines 31–37).** Against contraception and against continued marital relations during pregnancy and nursing. Conclusion: abstinence, "необходимое условие человеческого достоинства при безбрачном состоянии, еще более обязательно в браке" (the necessary condition of human dignity in the unmarried state, is still more obligatory in marriage). This is the load-bearing line for the marquee question; see §2.
4. **Point Four (lines 39–43).** Against raising children "как детей животных" (like the children of animals) — feeding and beautifying the body while prematurely inflaming sensuality. Conclusion: set other aims for child-rearing than "красивого, выхоленного тела" (a beautiful, pampered body).
5. **Point Five (lines 45–55).** Against making the winning of a love-object "высшую поэтическую цель" (the highest poetic aim) of life. Conclusion: stop thinking carnal love is something elevated; union with a love-object never eases — it always hinders — any aim worthy of a human being.

He then states (line 57) that these are "то существенное, что я хотел сказать" (the essential thing I wanted to say), and that one might argue *how* to remedy the evil but could not disagree with the propositions ("положения") themselves. He grounds the propositions in two things (line 59): the progress of humanity, "всегда шедшим от распущенности к большей и большей целомудренности" (always moving from dissoluteness toward greater and greater chastity); and that they are "только неизбежные выводы из учения Евангелия" (only inevitable conclusions from the teaching of the Gospel).

**Movement B — the objection and the ideal-vs-rule reply (lines 61–169).** "Но вышло не так" (But it turned out otherwise) — line 61. Nobody disputed the five points directly; instead they raised one objection: if celibacy is better than marriage and everyone followed it, the human race would end, so total chastity cannot be the ideal. Tolstoy's entire reply is that the objection confuses two different things — "правило, предписание и идеал" (a rule, a prescription, and an ideal), line 67. This is the doctrinal heart of the Afterword and is developed through the extended **compass / lantern-on-a-pole** images (lines 73–169): an external religious law is a lantern fixed to a post — you stand in its light and have nowhere further to go; Christ's teaching is a lantern carried ahead on a pole — the light is always in front, always drawing you onward. The ideal of full chastity (целомудрие) is, on this account, never reached but always orienting. See §2 for the decisive lines.

---

## 2. The decisive doctrinal passages (verbatim)

### 2a. Chastity / abstinence even within marriage as the Christian ideal

The Point-Three conclusion, line 35:

> А для того, чтобы этого не делать, надо понять, что воздержание, составляющее необходимое условие человеческого достоинства при безбрачном состоянии, еще более обязательно в браке.

(working English) "And in order not to do this, one must understand that abstinence — which constitutes the necessary condition of human dignity in the unmarried state — is still more obligatory in marriage." (Location: line 35, conclusion of Point Three.)

That chastity is better than dissoluteness is what he says nobody actually disputed — line 63:

> одним словом, никто не спорит о том, что целомудрие лучше распущенности.

(working English) "in a word, no one disputes that chastity is better than dissoluteness." (Location: line 63.)

The Gospel points to the ideal of *full* chastity — line 119:

> Можно не принимать учения Христа, того учения, которым проникнута вся наша жизнь и на котором основана вся наша нравственность, но, принимая это учение, нельзя не признавать того, что оно указывает идеал полного целомудрия.

(working English) "One may not accept the teaching of Christ — the teaching with which our whole life is permeated and on which all our morality is founded — but, accepting this teaching, one cannot fail to recognise that it points to the ideal of full chastity." (Location: line 119.)

He grounds "идеал полного целомудрия" in three Gospel statements he reads as admitting no reinterpretation — line 121:

> В Евангелии ведь сказано ясно и без возможности какого-либо перетолкования — во-первых, то, что женатому не должно разводиться с женой, с тем чтобы взять другую, а должно жить с той, с которой раз сошелся (Мф. V, 31—32; XIX, 8); во-вторых, то, что человеку вообще, и, следовательно, как женатому, так и неженатому, грешно смотреть на женщину как на предмет наслаждения (Мф. V, 28—29), и, в-третьих, то, что неженатому лучше не жениться вовсе, т. е. быть вполне целомудренным (Мф. XIX, 10—12).

(working English) "For in the Gospel it is said clearly and without the possibility of any reinterpretation — first, that a married man must not divorce his wife in order to take another, but must live with the one with whom he once joined (Mt. V, 31–32; XIX, 8); second, that for a person in general, and therefore for the married man as well as the unmarried, it is sinful to look on a woman as an object of pleasure (Mt. V, 28–29); and third, that for the unmarried it is better not to marry at all, i.e. to be fully chaste (Mt. XIX, 10–12)." (Location: line 121.)

What this asks of a married couple specifically — line 149 (his answer to "what should a man and woman living in marriage do?"):

> Всё то же: стремиться вместе к освобождению от соблазна, очищению себя и прекращению греха, заменой отношений, препятствующих и общему и частному служению Богу и людям, заменой плотской любви чистыми отношениями сестры и брата.

(working English) "The very same: to strive together toward liberation from temptation, toward purifying themselves and ceasing from sin, by replacing the relations that impede both general and particular service to God and to people — by replacing carnal love with the pure relations of sister and brother." (Location: line 149.)

And the underlying valuation of marriage itself — line 113:

> Идеал христианина есть любовь к Богу и ближнему, есть отречение от себя для служения Богу и ближнему; плотская же любовь, брак, есть служение себе и потому есть во всяком случае препятствие служению Богу и людям, а потому с христианской точки зрения — падение, грех.

(working English) "The ideal of the Christian is love of God and of one's neighbour, is renunciation of self for the service of God and neighbour; but carnal love, marriage, is service of self and therefore is in any case an obstacle to the service of God and of people, and therefore, from the Christian point of view — a fall, a sin." (Location: line 113.)

### 2b. The ideal is unattainable-but-orienting (render exactly, do not flatten)

The pivot of the whole reply — chastity is an ideal, not a rule — line 67:

> Целомудрие не есть правило или предписание, а идеал или скорее — одно из условий его.

(working English) "Chastity is not a rule or a prescription, but an ideal — or rather, one of the conditions of it." (Location: line 67.)

What "ideal" means for him — line 69:

> А идеал только тогда идеал, когда осуществление его возможно только в идее, в мысли, когда он представляется достижимым только в бесконечности и когда поэтому возможность приближения к нему — бесконечна.

(working English) "And an ideal is an ideal only when its realisation is possible only in idea, in thought — when it presents itself as attainable only in infinity, and when therefore the possibility of approaching it is infinite." (Location: line 69.)

That the unreachable ideal is nonetheless the most necessary, available guide — the compass image, line 137:

> Идеал совершенства, данный Христом, не есть мечта или предмет риторических проповедей, а есть самое необходимое, всем доступное руководство нравственной жизни людей, как компас — необходимое и доступное орудие руководства морехода; только надо верить как в то, так и в другое.

(working English) "The ideal of perfection given by Christ is not a daydream or a subject for rhetorical sermons, but the most necessary, universally accessible guide for the moral life of people — as the compass is the necessary and accessible instrument of guidance for a seaman; only one must believe in the one as in the other." (Location: line 137.)

The closing statement of the doctrine — line 165:

> Христианское учение идеала есть то единое учение, которое может руководить человечеством.

(working English) "The Christian teaching of the ideal is the one teaching that can guide humanity." (Location: line 165.)

### 2c. Whether Pozdnyshev's views are Tolstoy's OWN

The Afterword never names Pozdnyshev. The text that settles authorial ownership is line 123, where Tolstoy speaks in the first person of arriving at "тем убеждениям, которые теперь высказываю" (the convictions I now express):

> Это самое чувство испытывал и я в сильнейшей степени, когда приходил к тем убеждениям, которые теперь высказываю: я никак не ожидал, что ход моих мыслей приведет меня к тому, к чему он привел меня.

(working English) "This very feeling I experienced too, in the strongest degree, when I was arriving at the convictions I now express: I in no way expected that the course of my thoughts would bring me to where it brought me." (Location: line 123.)

> Я ужасался своим выводам, хотел не верить им, но не верить нельзя было.

(working English) "I was horrified at my own conclusions, I wanted not to believe them, but it was impossible not to believe them." (Location: line 123.)

These are stated as "мои мысли" / "своим выводам" (my thoughts / my own conclusions), in propria persona — not as the views of a character.

---

## 3. The marquee answer, evidence-anchored

**Question: How far does Tolstoy endorse Pozdnyshev?**

What the Afterword actually establishes — every clause tied to a quote:

- **The Afterword speaks in Tolstoy's own voice, not the character's, and adopts the conclusions as his own.** He frames the whole text as answering what *he* thinks ("что я думаю о предмете написанного мною рассказа", line 9), and at line 123 names them "тем убеждениям, которые теперь высказываю" and "своим выводам" — *my own conclusions* — adding "Я ужасался своим выводам, хотел не верить им, но не верить нельзя было" (line 123). So on the doctrinal core, the answer is: Tolstoy does not hold Pozdnyshev at arm's length; he affirms the position as his own and says he could not avoid it.

- **The endorsed core is the doctrine of chastity, up to and including chastity within marriage.** He affirms that the Gospel "указывает идеал полного целомудрия" (line 119); that "воздержание... еще более обязательно в браке" (line 35); that married couples should aim at "заменой плотской любви чистыми отношениями сестры и брата" (line 149); and that marriage itself is "с христианской точки зрения — падение, грех" (line 113). This is the maximal claim, and the Afterword makes it plainly. (Project rule: rendered exactly — not softened.)

- **But the endorsement is of an *ideal*, not of Pozdnyshev's tone, his violence, or a livable rule — and this distinction is Tolstoy's own and explicit.** The entire second movement turns on "смешивают две разнородные вещи — правило, предписание и идеал" (line 67) and the insistence that "Целомудрие не есть правило или предписание, а идеал" (line 67), realisable "только в бесконечности" (line 69). The ideal "не есть мечта... а есть самое необходимое, всем доступное руководство" (line 137) — a compass bearing, not a law one is condemned for missing. So Tolstoy endorses the *direction* Pozdnyshev's logic points (toward chastity) and the conclusions as truths, while reframing them as an asymptotic ideal rather than the despairing, accusatory absolutism the character voices in the novella. (Project rule: rendered exactly — not hardened into caricature; the Afterword does not retract the doctrine, it relocates it from rule to ideal.)

**Net:** On the doctrine — sexual abstinence as the Christian ideal, obligatory even within marriage — the Afterword establishes that these are Tolstoy's own convictions, not merely a character's, arrived at against his own resistance ("я никак не ожидал", "Я ужасался своим выводам", line 123). What it withholds from Pozdnyshev is the status of the doctrine as a *rule*: Tolstoy presents it as an unattainable-but-orienting ideal (the compass), which is the frame the character lacks. The endorsement is therefore strong on the proposition and explicit about its modality.