The invasion of Russian literature in Europe sparked by Eugene-Melchior de Vogüé’s book Le Roman russe has been well documented and needs little introduction here.[1] Portugal was one of the first countries in Europe to welcome this peaceful invasion thanks to the Portuguese writer and philosopher Jaime Magalhães Lima. At the time, he was a journalist and just two weeks after learning of the book’s publication in Paris (May,1886), he published an article in the Porto newspaper, A Provincia, detailing the excitement it had generated for Russian literature in France while urging his fellow compatriots to read such French favorites as Tolstoy, Dostoevski and Turgenev.[2] The Russomania that ensued had a profound impact on the reception of Russian literature in Portugal most notably as it applied to the late fiction and philosophical, religious, social, and political ideas of Tolstoy. 

In this brief study on the reception of Lev Tolstoy’s fiction, we will focus on the way in which Tolstoy’s ideas on marriage and love, jealousy, sexual relations, and the rights of women were received by Portuguese critics during the first two decades after Vogüé’s book took Portugal by storm. It is important to note here that although Tolstoy’s earlier fiction, including his most important novels War and Peace (1869) and Ana Karenina (1878), were readily available to Portuguese readers through French translations prior to 1886,[3]  they were overlooked by most Portuguese critics. One can only speculate as to why they were so unresponsive to Tolstoy’s greatest novel, War and Peace, and his second masterpiece, Anna Karenina. In his discussion of the Russian novel, Magalhães Lima contrasts its complexity with the relative simplicity of the French novel and suggests that a Western reader’s need for “simplicity, clarity, and unity” in a novel would make it much more difficult for him to appreciate the complexity of a Russian novel  (Edgerton 1976, 55).[4] Maria Amalia Vaz de Carvalho (pseudonym: Valentina de Lucena), well-known for her early, perceptive articles on Russian literature, most notably on Tolstoy and Dostoevski,[5] lists two characteristics which made it difficult to recommend modern Russian writers to her readers: their length and, echoing Magalhães Lima’s observation, their “desorden” compared to French and English novels:

Em primeiro lugar são todas enormes, depois cada mil páginas há apenas cem que deem um prazer de inteligência, uma voluptuosidade sem mistura. A desordem, inteiramente diversa de todos os moldes que nos conhecemos na Franca ou mesmo na Inglaterra.[6]

The above, together with the absence of complete Portuguese translations of Tolstoy’s earlier works were contributing factors[7] but perhaps the most important factor was that during this period, Tolstoy, the prophet, overshadowed Tolstoy, the artist.[8] In her essay on Tolstoy, Valentina confirms this state of affairs when she notes that in spite of her appreciation of Tolstoy’s skill as a novelist, her primary interest lies in his non-fiction work where he defines his ideas on religion, morality, politics, education, and art and rejects everything that has to do with intellectual thought, and where his humility and atonement for his pride makes him, in essence, the conscience of the world.[9]

Be that as it may, Valentina is responsible for the only critical assessment of Tolstoy’s early viewpoint on marriage during the entire period of this article (Ibid., “O conde Leão Tolstoi,” Reporter, 23 de maio de 1888). After acknowledging the greatness of Tolstoy’s masterpieces, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, she argues that many of his shorter works were more noteworthy for their acute understanding of human psychology and personal relationships (Ibid., O Reporter, 23 de maio de 1888). His novella, Family Happiness (1859), translated into French as Katia (1878) (Portuguese translation, Katia, 1904) is a perfect example. Written three years before his marriage in 1862, it best expresses Tolstoy’s idealized vision of marriage at the time. For the young, marriage and family was one of the main values of life and principal sources of “family happiness.” Although love may express itself passionately at first, as time progresses and the passion disappears in a “happy” marriage, it is replaced by friendship and mutual respect. As the only woman critic to write on Russian literature during this time, her feminine perspective is as unique as it is sensitive to Tolstoy’s creative process.  Above all, she claims the novella is a study of the feminine soul which she feels belies its origin owing to the fact that it is “tão finamente cinzelada que chega a parecer milagroso que um homem o tenha feito!” (Ibid., O Reporter). She notes that its description of love between a married couple, which begins with passionate love, slowly deteriorates into something quite different. As they grow apart, they argue, are upset that their passion is gone, and only a friendship remains. They share a sadness for what they had but are unable to regain. They realize, however, that there is no solution to their problem other than to resign themselves to the reality that their situation is a part of married life. Valentina concludes that the power of his narrative is derived from the fact that Tolstoy’s analysis is always understated and is masterfully depicted through his ability to subtly evoke the emotions and thoughts of his characters.

Tolstoy’s early, idealized view of marriage radically changed over time reaching its most dramatic, skeptical, and extreme expression thirty years later via his novella, The Kreutzer Sonata. Its impact in Russian was immediate and created a sensation there that spread rapidly to Europe and America where it provoked an impassioned polemic. In November 1889, when Tolstoy’s unpublished version of The Kreutzer Sonata was first read in public in Russia, it made such an impression that, against Tolstoy’s will, the manuscript was copied on the same night and three days later, 300 lithograph copies were already in private circulation in St. Petersburg. By early 1890, when it became obvious that the Russian censor would not allow it to be published, the Bibliographic Office in Berlin published the novella in four language—Russian, German, French and English—simultaneously. At least two other English translations, by H. Sutherland Edwards and by Beni R. Tucker, were published in 1890 in England and America respectively.[10] In the same year, two more French translations were published due to demand.[11] The Portuguese reader would have to wait until 1892 for a complete translation followed by three other book editions in 1898, 1911, and 1916, and one serialized edition in 1899.[12]  

Its prohibition in Russia, together with its discussion of marriage, jealousy, man’s sexuality, the role of sex in a marriage, the inequality of the man and woman in terms of their physical relationships, the imbalanced sex education of boys and girls, and the ideals of chastity and sexual abstinence transformed it into the sensation and a best seller of the time. In the United States, the Federal Post Office prohibited the mailing of newspapers containing serialized installments of The Kreutzer Sonata, Theodore Roosevelt called Tolstoy a “sexual moral pervert” and Emile Zola declared The Kreutzer Sonata was a “nightmare, born of a diseased imagination.”

The Portuguese critical response, based on the French translations, to Tolstoy’s controversial ideas on marriage and sexuality was swift but not in line with the disapproval of critics in France, England and the United States. On March 6th, 1890, a short article in the newspaper O Tempo tells us that a French translation was available in Portugal, the last week of February, just a month after its appearance in France. A summary was given of its content while noting that it did not measure up to Tolstoy’s earlier works as Guerra e Paz and Anna Karenina.[13]

Magalhães Lima was the first critic to comment extensively on Tolstoy’s novella but makes it clear at the beginning of his study that he was more interested in its “doutrina da vida conjugal” than in its artistic value:

Disse um crítico francês que na Sonata à Kreutzer há uma teoria do casamento e um romance. E é verdade: mesmo materialmente é possível estremar no livro o romance e a teoria que lhe serve de tesse. Abstenho-me n'este momento de falar do romance. Limito-me á doutrina da vida conjugal expendida naquele livro, doutrina notabilíssima, já na sua substância, já na audácia com que levanta os mais graves problemas, negando a verdade e justiça de ideias e de costumes tilo geralmente aceites que, pôde dizer-se, constituem a base do casamento nas sociedades contemporânea. (Magalhães Lima 1890, 211)[14]

Magalhães Lima examines Tolstoy’s view of marriage as an institution based on carnal love where a person serves only himself. Such love can only lead to sensuality, infidelity, jealousy, and possible violence. Tolstoi argues that in order for love in a marriage to be selfless, it needs no physical consummation and is best served by celibacy even if it results in the extinction of mankind.   

Although Magalhães Lima feels that Tolstoy’s criticism of certain aspects of marriage, gender roles and sex are correct, he calmly argues that Tolstoy’s biggest mistake was to reduce his evaluation and consideration of man to a single principle that dictates his obedience to God even when reason and experience has proved that life is a compromise between two opposing forces: “a plena expansão individual, o campo aberto aos nossos apetites e paixões, e a renúncia, a abdicação do individuo na comunhão do Amor” (Magalhães Lima 1890, 218).[15]

In sharp contrast to Magalhães Lima’s opinion that Tolstoy’s novella, though flawed, is of value owing to its controversial, but relevant, discussion of the institution of marriage, the critic Ignotus,[16] writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Tempo[17] states that the novel is mediocre and if it were not for the fact that Tolstoy’s reputation as a great writer had preceded him, the Kreutzer Sonata would have been dismissed as banal. Ignotus strongly disagrees with those critics who maintain that Tolstoy is a profound thinker. He contends, for example, that Tolstoy’s ideas on love merely repeat those expressed by Schopenhauer in his analysis of the metaphysics of love[18] albeit, without his insight: “Quanto a ideia, Tolstoy não passa para mim de um repetidor de Schopenhauer, mas sem essa audácia dessa penetração genial, que distinguia o grande filosofo alemão” (Ibid., Ignotus, 1). At the same time, he rebukes the same critics who insist that Tolstoy has no style, no literary form, arguing instead that it is precisely his style that defines his form and sets him apart from past and contemporary European writers who, in their laborious search for the exact word, the exact turn of phrase to convey their ideas, developed a uniform, imitative style that did not allow them to develop an original, personal style.  Flaubert is cited as an example: “Essa preocupação exclusive da forma esterilizou o grande Flaubert e alem de assim inutilizar nesse ingento e inglório trabalho o talento, vai dando a literatura um tom uniforme de estilo, acabando com a maneira próprio original de cada um escrever o que pensa” (Ibid., Ignotus,1). According to Ignotus, Tolstoy does not have this problem for the simple reason that he does not worry about style.  He is not interested in transmitting his ideas through meticulously crafted, logical phrases but rather through a more personal style that is spontaneous, alive, full of energy which engages the reader on an emotional level:

O conde Leão Tolstoi não se preocupa com estilo, a frase cai-lhe da pena, quente, colorida, vigoroso, cheia de energia e de forca, na inspiração ardente e vivida das composições de improviso….Pouco lhe importa repetir palavras, ferir asperamente os ouvidos com dissonâncias desagradáveis. Ele quer convencer o leitor, esmagá-lo a peso de argumentação e de logica para impor-lhe a convicção entusiástica que o domina. (Ibid.,Ignotus 1)

Following in the footsteps of Hippolyte Taine, Ignotus argues that Tolstoy’s revolutionary style is a consequence of the unique character of the Slavs. Compared to the aged decadence of Western society,

Os eslavos estão em pleno vigor da mocidade, … Na literatura, na política, na ciência, eles têm uma plêiade brilhante e nova, original e profunda. Aplicando ao caso a teoria de Taine talvez se deva explicar o estilo de conde Leão Tolstoi pela virilidade da raça eslava, que ainda não conhece essa afetação da forma, essa efeminação do estilo, se assim me posso exprimir. (Ibid. 1)

In 1892, when the Kreuzer Sonata was first published in Portugal, it was a favorably reviewed in Eça de Queirós’s prestigious literary journal Revista de Portugal by an anonymous critic who, while applauding its translation, laments that the Portuguese reader was unaware of Tolstoy’s earlier, more important, and artistic works due to complete lack of Portuguese translations.[19] Still, he notes, the choice of this work is an important one because even though Tosltoy’s earlier works are artistically superior, no other work “toca problemas problemas tão delicados de moral” (Ibid., Revista de Portugal, 118) and no other work created such an uproar throughout Europe and the United States due to its polemical views on marriage. In addition to its moral value, our reviewer also attests to its literary value as a drama “com situações dum extremo vigor, a par das obras clássicas d'esse género” (Ibid., Revista de Portugal, 118) which, taken together, makes the Kreutzer Sonata obligatory reading for “toda a gente ainda que medianamente ilustrada” (Ibid., Revista de Portugal 118).

The sociological and philosophical importance of Tolstoy’s novella was also the subject of an article by C de B (identified only by his initials) published shortly after its translation into Portuguese.[20] C de B notes that Tolstoy’s novella generated extensive controversy due to its discussion of morality, women’s rights, marriage, and the prospect for the future extinction of humanity owing to its advocacy for celibacy in marriage. Given the state of immorality in the world, our critic argues that such an event would be difficult to imagine, but Tolstoy maintains that from the remotest times, the history of man’s development has always moved forward: “da incontinência para a castidade, da confusão primitiva dos sexos para a poligamia, e da poligamia para a monogamia, e da monogamia incontinente para a castidade no casamento” (Ibid., Novidades,3). Marriage, according to Tolstoy, is nothing but sexual exploitation of women by men. Contemporary man, as represented by the protagonist, Posdnicheff, is characterized by his debauchery and immorality where women are viewed only as objects of pleasure. In an analysis revolutionary for its time, Tolstoy argues that if this is to change, a woman must not be educated from childhood to view her primary role as that of pleasing a man but as an equal: 

A igualdade dos diretos da mulher poder-se há conseguir, ou rebaixando-se a mulher, ou elevando-se o homem ao mesmo nível moral, isto e’, ou será’ permitida a mulher a incontinência que se tolera ao homem…ou os homens enfim terão de se conter, para que o mundo não se transforme numa vasta casa de prostituição. (Ibid., Novidades, 3) 

Our critic concludes that however the future may unfold, Tolstoy’s “extraordinary conclusions” concerning the possible future extinction of humanity due to his advocacy for celibacy in marriage are moral and consoling when compared to the world-ending cataclysm forecast in the Bible or the gradual, agonizing, extinction of man due to the gradual death of the sun as predicted by scientists.

Unlike a number of European and America counterparts who received Tolstoy’s views on marriage, infidelity, and relations between the two sexes with disapproval and condemnation, Portuguese critics were more interested in assessing the practical and spiritual value of his ideas. The questions of infidelity, jealousy, and the sexual dynamic of a marriage elicited minimal comment from Portuguese critics because their primary concern was Tolstoy’s argument that carnal love in marriage is a selfish love, based only on a person’s desire to satisfy his pleasure. Physical love contrasts with spiritual love where a person renounces himself for the sake of God and the other. For this reason, Tolstoy argues that a healthy marriage is best served by celibacy. Although the critics did not object to his basic theoretical definition of spiritual love and his observations on the lack of equality between man and women in their sexual education and relations, they were opposed to celibacy in marriage due to the implied extinction of humanity.

[1] See:  F.W. J. Hemmings. The Russian Novel in France. London: Oxford University Press, 1950, 27 – 30, 48 -52 and William Edgerton’s: “The Penetration of Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature into the other Slavic Countries.” American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists. Sofia, September 1963. Volume II: Literary Contributions. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 41-78, to better understand the importance and impact Vogüé’s book had throughout Europe.

[2] “Tem a palavra Rússia.” A Província. 24 de maio de 1886.

[3] The catalogue of Fialho de Almeida’s library housed at the Biblioteca Nacional de Portugal provides an invaluable insight into the French translations of Russian literature readily available to the Portuguese reader during this period. Above all it tells us that Fialho was almost exclusively an avid reader of Tolstoi and Dostoevski. His library contains a two-volume set of Tolstoy’s complete works published in 1901 and 1902 plus 21 other individual works including such major works as War and Peace (1889 trans), Anna Karenina (1894 trans.), The Kreutzer Sonata (1890, trans) Resurrection (1900, trans), The Cossacks (1890, trans.) Childhood, Boyhood, Youth (1887, trans.) as well as many of his most important philosophical publications. Dostoevski is represented by 14 titles which include all his major novels: Crime and Punishment (6th edition), the Idiot (10th edition), The Brothers Karamazov (1888 trans.), Notes from Underground (4th edition), The Possessed (10th edition), The Insulted and Humiliated (10th edition first translated 1884) and even his Writer's Diary 6th 1904. It is interesting to note that Turgenev is not represented. See; Sala Fialho de Almeida: catálogo geral da livraria legada pelo notável escritor José Valentim Fialho de Almeida á Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa. Lisboa: Imprensa da Universidade, 1914. – [4], 304, [3] p.; 25 cm. https://purl.pt/23549

[4] Edgerton, William B. 1976. “Tolstoy and Magalhães Lima,” Comparative Literature. 1976, 28:1, 51-64.

[5] Carvalho, Maria Amália Vaz de. “Notas de uma impressionista,” Correio da Noite, 4 de março de 1888, pp. 2-3. “O conde Leão Tolstoi,” O Repórter, 23 de maio de 1888, p. 1. “Os romancistas russos,” Jornal do Commercio, 3 de julho de 1889. “O Crime e o Castigo,” Chrónicas de Valentina. Lisboa: Tavares Cardoso e Irmão, 1890, pp. 79-92. “A excomunhão de Tolstoi e a sua doutrina,” Figuras de hoje e de hontem, Lisboa. Ed. Parceria António Maria Pereira, 1902, pp. 117-124. Crime e castigo. Trad. Camara Lima; pref. Maria Amália Vaz de Carvalho. Lisboa: Empreza Litteraria Fluminense, 1910. (Preface is a reprint of her 1890 article on Crime e castigo in Chrónicas de Valentina, 79 – 92.) Valentina was both a writer and poet and the first woman to be admitted to the Lisbon Academy of Sciences. Her home was one of Lisbon’s first literary salons and hosted such writers as Eça de Queiroz, Camilo Castelo Branco, Ramalho Ortigão and Guerra Junqueiro.

[6] Valentina, “Os romancistas russos,” O Journal do Commercio, 3 de julho de 1889,1).

[7] The only translations of War and Peace prior to its first full translation in 1942 (Guerra e paz. Trad. de José Marinho. Ed. integral: 3 vols. Lisboa: Inquérito, 1942) were radically abbreviated in serialized versions published in newspaper folhetins: 1.) “Guerra e paz,” O Paiz. 1 de março 1891 – 15 de março de 1891. (3 folhetins); 2.) O Debate. 12 de outubro 1903 – 2 de maio 1904 (158 folhetins). Anna Karenina fared better with two, more extensive, curtailed, editions: 1.)  Ana Karenine. Diário Popular. 20 de marco 1895 – 19 dezembro 1895 (216 folhetins); 2.) A Província. 16 de junho 1903 – 2 de novembro 1903 (77 folhetins) and one book editon: Ana Karenine. Trad. Vasco Valdez. Lisboa: Guimaräes & Ca., 1912. Except for one, shallow review by Ruy D’Aboim, this book translation was completely ignored by other critics. In his book review, D’Aboim notes that Anna Karenina was based on a true event witnessed by Tolstoi when a woman threw herself under a train. The repulsion he felt on witnessing this scene contrasted in his mind with the memories he held of his marriage and his first years of family life. According to D’Aboim, all the events described in the novel, “estão ligados a história da vida íntima de Levin: a do próprio Tostoi” (“Acerca do romance Ana Karenine, de Tolstoi”, O Occidente, n.º 1223, XXXV, 20 de dezembro de 1912, pp. 279-280).

[8] For a detailed analysis of this phenomenon see: Edgerton, William B., “The Artist Turned Prophet: Leo Tolstoj After 1880.” American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists. Volume II Literary Contributions. The Hague, 1968. 60-85.

[9] “O conde Leão Tolstoi,” O Repórter, 23 de maio de 1888, p. 1.

[10] See: Katya Rogatchevskaia for a more detailed description of the Berlin, England and American editions. “Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata,” European Studies Blog: blog.bl.uk ,17 October 2017.

[11] La sonata a Kreutzer. Trad. E Halperine-Kaminsky. Paris: Flammarion, 1890. La sonata a Kreutzer. Trad. J. H. Rosny, I. Plvlovsky, augmentee d’une replique de l’auteur. Paris: Lemerre, 1890.

[12] A sonata de Kreutzer: estudo social. Trad? Porto: Ernesto Chardron: Lugan & Genelioux, 1892. A sonata de Kreutzer. Trad. C. Dantas. Lisboa: Empreza Ed., 1898.  “A Sonata de Kreutzer,” Diário Illustrado. 14 de maio a 11 de julho 1899 (42 folletins). A sonata de Kreutzer. Trad. Maria Benedicta Pinho.  Lisboa: Guimarães, 1911. A sonata de Kreutzer. Trad. Maria Benedicta Pinho. 2a ed. Lisboa: Guimarães, 1916.

[13] “Um novo romance de Tolstoi,” O Tempo, 6 de março de 1890, 1.

[14] Magalhães Lima, Jaime de “A vida conjugal,” Revista de Portugal, vol. III, novembro de 1890, 211-223.

[15] Ibid., Magalhães Lima, 218.

[16] In the 19th century, one of the most popular pseudonyms used by Portuguese and Brazilian critics was Ignotus (Latin for “unknown”). Although Ignotus is a Brazilian critic, his article was published in the newspaper O Tempo, the first Portuguese newspaper to bring Tolstoy’s novella to the attention of the reading public. His article was published only in Portugal. In addition to enriching the Portuguese reception of The Kreutzer Sonata, it is important for revealing how quickly Tolstoy’s work was received and translated in Brazil almost two years earlier than in Portugal.  Within a year after its publication in France, four separate translations were published in Brazil, two in book form and two in serialized newspaper form in the span of only one year: 1) A sonata de Kreutzer, Trad. Jose Alves, Visconti de Coaracy. Rio de Janeiro: B.-L.Garnier, 1890; 2) A Sonata de Kreutzer, Trad. Matheus de Magalhães. Porto Alegre: Oficinas tipográficas da Federação, 1891; 3) A Sonata de Kreutzer. Trad.? Diario de Noticias. 15 de dezembro de 1890 - 16 de janeiro de 1891; 4) A Sonata de Kreutzer. Trad. Matheus de Magalhães. A Federação. 30 de janeiro – 7 de marco de 1891. See : denise bottmann http://naogostodeplagio.blogspot.com/2019/11/mais-russices.htm // https://naogostodeplagio.blogspot.com/2017/06/mais-cinco-autores-e-suas-respectivas.html for more details on these translations.

[17] Ignotus, “A Sonata de Kreutzer.” O Tempo, 29 de setembro de 1891, 1.

[18] Schopenhauer defines his reflections on love in the second volume of his iconic work, The World as Will and Representation (1844) in an essay entitled “On the Metaphysics of Sexual Love.” He argues that love is nothing but justification for the natural need for sex based on the human being’s impulse to procreate and preserve itself. Any lessening of sexual desire should be viewed as a liberation. Schopenhauer on Sex and Romantic Love (samwoolfe.com) SAM WOOLFE Freelance Writer & Blogger August 31, 2020.

[19] “A sonata de Kreuzter, por Leon Tostoi,” Revista de Portugal. Vol. IV, 1892, 117,118.

[20] C. de B. “A sonata de Kreutzer,” Novidades, 17 e 18 de fevereiro de 1892, 3.

Bibliographical References

Bottmann, Denise. “Mais Russices.”

Bottmann, Denise. “Mais Cinco Autores e suas Respectivas.”

Edgerton, William B., “The Artist Turned Prophet: Leo Tolstoj After 1880.” American Contributions to the Sixth International Congress of Slavists. Volume II Literary Contributions. The Hague, 1968. 60-85.

Edgerton, William B., “The Penetration of Nineteenth-Century Russian Literature into the other Slavic Countries.” American Contributions to the Fifth International Congress of Slavists, Sofia, September 1963. Volume II: Literary Contributions. The Hague: Mouton & Co. 41-78

Edgerton, William B. 1976. “Tolstoy and Magalhães Lima,” Comparative Literature.  1976,28:1, 51-64. 

Hemmings, F.W. J., (1950), The Russian Novel in France. London, Oxford University Press, 1950.  27 – 30, 48 -52.

Rogatchevskaia, Katya. “Tolstoy’s Kreutzer Sonata,” European Studies Blog: blog.bl.uk ,17 October 2017.

 Magalhães Lima, Jaime de, “Tem a palavra Rússia.” A Província. 24 de maio de 1886. 

Magalhães Lima, Jaime de . “A vida conjugal,” Revista de Portugal, vol. III, novembro de 1890, 211-223.

Woolfe, Sam. “Schopenhauer on Sex and Romantic Love.” Freelance Writer & Blogger August 31, 2020.