MOSCOW,
January 18, 1887.
... During the holidays I was so overwhelmed with work that on Mother’s
name-day I was almost dropping with exhaustion.
I must tell you that in Petersburg I am now the most fashionable writer.
One can see that from papers and magazines, which at the end of 1886 were
taken up with me, bandied my name about, and praised me beyond my deserts.
The result of this growth of my literary reputation is that I get a number
of orders and invitations--and this is followed by work at high pressure
and exhaustion. My work is nervous, disturbing, and involving strain. It is
public and responsible, which makes it doubly hard. Every newspaper report
about me agitates both me and my family.... My stories are read at public
recitations, wherever I go people point at me, I am overwhelmed with
acquaintances, and so on, and so on. I have not a day of peace, and feel as
though I were on thorns every moment.
... Volodya [Translator’s Note: He had apparently criticized the name
Vladimir, which means “lord of the world.”] is right.... It is true that a
man cannot possess the world, but a man can be called “the lord of the
world.” Tell Volodya that out of gratitude, reverence, or admiration of the
virtues of the best men--those qualities which make a man exceptional and
akin to the Deity--peoples and historians have a right to call their elect
as they like, without being afraid of insulting God’s greatness or of
raising a man to God. The fact is we exalt, not a man as such, but his good
qualities, just that divine principle which he has succeeded in developing
in himself to a high degree. Thus remarkable kings are called “great,”
though bodily they may not be taller than I. I. Loboda; the Pope is called
“Holiness,” the patriarch used to be called “Ecumenical,” although he was
not in relations with any planet but the earth; Prince Vladimir was called
“the lord of the world,” though he ruled only a small strip of ground,
princes are called “serene” and “illustrious,” though a Swedish match
is a thousand times brighter than they are--and so on. In using these
expressions we do not lie or exaggerate, but simply express our delight,
just as a mother does not lie when she calls her child “my golden one.” It
is the feeling of beauty that speaks in us, and beauty cannot endure what
is commonplace and trivial; it induces us to make comparisons which Volodya
may, with his intellect, pull to pieces, but which he will understand with
his heart. For instance, it is usual to compare black eyes with the night,
blue with the azure of the sky, curls with waves, etc., and even the Bible
likes these comparisons; for instance, “Thy womb is more spacious than
heaven,” or “The Sun of righteousness arises,” “The rock of faith,” etc.
The feeling of beauty in man knows no limits or bounds. This is why a
Russian prince may be called “the lord of the world”; and my friend Volodya
may have the same name, for names are given to people, not for their
merits, but in honour and commemoration of remarkable men of the past....
If your young scholar does not agree with me, I have one more argument
which will be sure to appeal to him: in exalting people even to God we do
not sin against love, but, on the contrary, we express it. One must not
humiliate people--that is the chief thing. Better say to man “My angel”
than hurl “Fool” at his head--though men are more like fools than they are
like angels.