While reading these short stories in particular, I wonder, how, if at all, does the commentary on human and nature in these works relate to environmentalism during the time periods that they were written? What was the context of environmentalism during these times? While the concept of environmentalism as we know it now is (as far as I’ve learned) very modern, the core of valuing nature is evidently long-lived. The fact that every poem, story, and work of art that we have read has any focus on nature demonstrates that all of these authors perceive nature to be, at the very least, worth noticing. Of course, most go further to honor nature or contemplate its complexity. Ultimately, I wonder how art that values nature relates to environmentalist ideologies through time. 

The Bear Hunt gives light to that relationship on an individual scale for Tolstoy.

While this story stands out as a nonfictional anecdote, both its context and Tolstoy’s artistic narration reveal his evolving perspective on how humans and nature should interact. As Tolstoy recounts his adventure, it is sometimes unclear whether it’s a “Bear Hunt” or a “Human Hunt.” Nonetheless, the title, and the details at the end of the story both point to Tolstoy’s pride in his victory. Every characterization of the bear depicts him as either charmingly smart, or as “mad with fright.” Tolstoy builds up a strong sense of empathy for the “huge creature,” and yet the concluding lines of the story seem to show that he feels he deserves respect and victory for dominating the animal (117). He stuffs the bear, and keeps it in his room – a constant reminder of man’s ability to dominate nature. On the other hand, the bear only left minimal scars that “can scarcely be seen” (117). Although, when the bear is attacking Tolstoy, Tolstoy is obviously inferior, by the end, he juxtaposes the damage of either player against the other in terms of their ultimate outcome.

When Tolstoy wrote this piece in 1872 reflecting on his experience from 1858, he revealed a contradictory perception of nature; he acknowledges the bear’s intelligence and emotional capacity, yet he ultimately views the bear’s purpose as to serve him. However, two decades after the incident, he decided to stop hunting on “humanitarian grounds” (108). Had Tolstoy written this work 10 years later, I presume that he would have depicted the adventure, particularly the ending, very differently.