A new study on Bulgakov

Transcription

BULGAKOV AS A VINDICATOR OF TRADITIONAL IDEAS AND VALUES
IN THE SOVIET CONTEXT
Key words: Bulgakov, Russian literature, New Historicism, October revolution,
totalitarian societies, Soviet history, intellectual criticism, heritage of antiquity,
Stalin/Djugashvili, the USSR.
Contents
page
Preface ................................................................................................................................. i
Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... ii
A note on the transliteration system ................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1
The general background of the dissertation .................................................................. 1
The aims of the dissertation........................................................................................... 2
The theoretical framework ............................................................................................ 3
The methodological approach ....................................................................................... 4
The selection of texts to be scrutinized and their character .......................................... 5
A short presentation of the six selected texts ................................................................ 6
Bulgakov’s social and intellectual background ............................................................. 7
Previous studies ............................................................................................................. 8
The intended readers of the dissertation ........................................................................ 9
Chapter 2. Bulgakov's interpretation of history in The White Guard ............................... 10
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10
The genesis of the novel ......................................................................................... 11
The purpose of the chapter ..................................................................................... 11
Previous studies ...................................................................................................... 11
A general historical background ............................................................................ 12
The methodological approach ................................................................................ 13
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 14
The role of the tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Church .................................... 14
The role of "the Moscow events" and their consequences ..................................... 17
The role of hetman Skoropadsky ........................................................................... 22
The role of the Ukrainian language ........................................................................ 27
The role of Petlyura ................................................................................................ 30
The role of the Germans ......................................................................................... 34
The role of the White army and its supporters ........................................................ 37
Conclusions of the analysis ......................................................................................... 40
Bulgakov's interpretation of history in The White Guard ...................................... 40
Bulgakov's vindication of traditional ideas and values in The White Guard ......... 43
Chapter 3. Bulgakov's use of science fiction in The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog 47
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 47
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 47
The Fatal Eggs ....................................................................................................... 47
The Heart of a Dog ................................................................................................ 50
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 55
Traditional ideas and values vindicated in the two texts ........................................ 55
A look into the author's workroom......................................................................... 57
Final discussion ........................................................................................................... 57
The reception of the two texts ................................................................................ 57
Chapter 4. The White Guard transformed to The Days of the Turbins............................. 59
Introduction .................................................................................................................. 59
The background of the chapter ............................................................................... 59
The method used in this chapter ............................................................................. 62
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 62
A comparison between the novel and the play ....................................................... 62
A comparison between the first and the final version ........................................... 67
The conclusions of the two comparisons .................................................................... 70
The differences between the first and the final version ......................................... 70
The differences between the novel and the final version ........................................ 71
Bulgakov's defence of certain ideas and values in the play .................................... 73
The social energy released by the play ........................................................................ 74
Chapter 5. The case of Zoyka's apartment........................................................................ 78
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 78
The story of the play............................................................................................... 78
The historical background of the play .................................................................... 79
Methodological approach ....................................................................................... 80
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 81
From the original version to the first performance ................................................ 81
The Moscow version of 1926 ................................................................................. 83
The reception of the play ....................................................................................... 87
The Paris version of 1935 ...................................................................................... 88
The process of translating the play into French ...................................................... 88
Analysis of the differences between the Moscow and the Paris version ............... 89
Conclusions of the analysis ......................................................................................... 90
A final discussion ........................................................................................................ 91
Chapter 6. Fiction, facts and values in the "Pilate Novel" ............................................... 93
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 93
The relations between fiction and facts in "The Pilate Novel" ................................... 94
Previous studies of the historical elements ............................................................ 94
Methodology .......................................................................................................... 96
Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 97
Conclusions of the first analysis ................................................................................ 103
Moral values in "The Pilate Novel" .......................................................................... 104
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 104
The methodological approach ............................................................................... 104
Analysis ................................................................................................................. 105
Conclusions of the second analysis ............................................................................ 110
A final discussion ....................................................................................................... 112
Chapter 7. Conclusions and a final discussion ................................................................ 114
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 114
The relation between fiction and facts ....................................................................... 114
Bulgakov as a vindicator of traditional ideas and values ........................................... 114
Changes in Bulgakov's way of vindicating traditional ideas and values.................... 120
A final discussion ....................................................................................................... 123
Bulgakov's situation as writer in the Soviet Union .............................................. 123
Back to the beginning of the inquiry ..................................................................... 126
Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 129
Primary sources .......................................................................................................... 129
English translations of works of Bulgakov ................................................................ 130
Secondary sources ...................................................................................................... 130
Appendix 1. An extract of G. Lucas’ Master Essay “Healthy Blasphemy: Dissenting
Discourses in Rushdie and Bulgakov” (2002)................................................................. 134
Appendix 2. An article published by Bulgakov (26 November 1919) in the local
newspaper of the town of Grozny (translated by J.A.E. Curtis) ...................................... 148
Preface
Already as fairly young student I was fascinated by the writings of Mikhail Bulgakov.
My first experience of his works was the reading of his novel The Master and
Margarita. My interest in his literary production followed me during my life and
deepened successively. However, for a long time my working life did not permit any
concentration on a scholarly study of his works.
Some years after the Millenium there appeared an opportunity to chose a topic for a
licentiate thesis. It was written in Swedish with the titel Bulgakovs budskap. En studie
av Pilatusromanen i Master i Margarita (in translation: Bulgakov's message. A study
of the Pilate Novel in The Master and Margarita).
Gothenburg in April 2012
M. Terese Tengström
i
Abbreviations
GDP = Gross Domestic Product
MkhAT = Moskovsky khudozhestveny akademichesky teater (Moscow Art Theatre)
MUR = Moskovsky Ugolovnyy Rozysk (Moscow Criminal Police)
NEP = Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Politica (New Economic Policy)
OGPU = Obyedinennoye Gosudarstvennoye Politicheskoye Opravleniye (United
Governmental Political Authority).
Note on transliteration
The transliteration system chosen in this thesis is that employed by the Library of
Congress system of transliteration. In the proper names the endings - ый - ий are
transliterated as -y.
In quotations from Curtis, Glenny, Milne or Proffer the transliteration system is that
of their original English translations.
ii
Chapter 1. Introduction
The general background of the dissertation
During the last few decades, Bulgakov has aroused a considerable interest among literary authors in different parts of the world.1 A fairly recent example is what Salman
Rushdie wrote in a comprehensive article in The Independent on Sunday (90-02-04) in
order to defend himself and his novel The Satanic Verses against the ongoing violent
attacs on the book and its author. Here he stressed that his own fate and the fate of his
novel was similar to that of Bulgakov and his novel The Master and Margarita but also
that this novel had been one of his most important models when he was writing his own
book:
The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov and its author were persecuted by Soviet totalitarianism. It is extraordinary to find my novel's life
echoing that of one of its greatest models.
Salman Rushdie expressely writes in the same article that The Master and Margarita
was one of "the two books that were the most influential on the shape [of] this novel",
(i.e. The Satanic Verses). The other model was William Blake's Marriage of Heaven
and Hell.
The American researcher G. Lucas has investigated the similarities between Salman
Rushdis's novel The Satanic Verses and Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita in his
Master Essay entitled ”Healthy Blasphemy: Dissenting Discourses in Rushdie and Bulgakov” (2002).2 In his comparative analysis Lucas also focuses the role of the artist in
society:
Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Makhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita share a similar concern: the role of the artist in society.
Rushdie and Bulgakov see the artist as one who disrupts the quotidian.
Without the occasional contention, a society, or any institution – be it collective or individual – may become complacent and prone to tyranny.
Rushdie and Bulgakov present the rebellious, uncompromising figure of
the artist, and they criticize and abuse the masses for their thoughtless acceptance of one man’s, or institution’s, vision of the “truth.” The artist of1
I think that this international importance of Bulgakov could be the object of an interesting survey. In her
book The Mind in Ferment (New Delhi 1984) the Indian scholar K. Sahni mentions the relations between
Gabriel García Márquez’ One Hundred Years of Solitude and The Master and Margarita. She also mentions Ngaugi Wa Thiong'o from Kenya as a second example of Bulgakov's importance to modern authors.
She expresses her view on the similarity between their books and The Master and Margarita in the following way: “Through their reliance on myth and ‘magical realism’ intertwined into the fabric of today’s
reality, these authors, like Bulgakov, are universalising human experience while at the same time tackling
specific issues of contemporary life” (p 220).
2
Lucas describes his own study in the following words: "A juxtaposition of several of each novel’s major
characters indicates the shared themes of artistic inspiration, production, dissemination, and influence,
and illustrates distinct degrees of successful artists and how they transcend their societies’ ideologies."
His Essay is reproduced in Appendix 1.
1
fers a different truth, one that usually precipitates ridicule, abuse, and
sometimes death, while providing an expression of heterodoxy. Rushdie
and Bulgakov, therefore, admire the artist’s individual expression of truth,
yet both criticize a thoughtless devotion to an institutionalization of that
truth by unthinking masses. These fundamental issues addressed in both
novels furnish examples of the strength and devotion necessary to challenge general beliefs with creative and original thoughts.
Lucas is here too generalizing in comparing the two authors and their cases but it is correct that Bulgakov lived in a society where the leading elite claimed to have a monopoly
on what was true and on what were the true values of human life. The official representatives of that society regarded themselves as the only acceptable interpreters of the societal and historical reality. An author living in such a situation has to handle very complex circumstances determining the relation between facts, fiction and ideology. Bulgakov never accepted Bolshevism (Curtis 1991, p 182) and therefore had permanent difficulty with censors and critics. Though he never stopped writing short stories, novellas,
novels and plays.
A factor of importance for Bulgakov's role as an unconformist author in the USSR
was evidently that he was a creative writer provided with a high self-esteem. It appears
from a sentence in his diary 1923 2/9: ”and I become aware of the thought darting up in
me that it is true, I am immeasurably more powerful a writer than any of those I know”
(translated by and quoted from Curtis 1991, p 51).3 Another indication of how Bulgakov
looked upon himself as an author is the fact that he was not fond of contemporary authors such as Bely and Mayakovsky (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914 -1940, p 87) but admired a
realist Bunin, Nobel Prize winner 1933 (Milne 1990, p 77).
The aims of the dissertation
The primary aim of the dissertation is to study what kind of traditional ideas and values
Bulgakov is vindicating in his works and, consequently, what kind of contemporary
phenomena he is criticizing. By the expression "traditional ideas and values" is meant
such ideas and values that belonged to the pre-Revolutionary past and therefore often
were ideologically unacceptable in the eyes of the Communists in the USSR. The origins of these traditional ideas and values will be a complementary object of the study.
A second aim is to study how and to what extent Bulgakov was modifying his way
of defending certain ideas and values and how he modified his own attitudes and views
during his lifetime from the pre-Revolutionary Russia to the époque of Stalin. The
choice of the analysed texts (see below) has been done with regard to this aim. It is assumed that it will be possible to distinguish between different steps in his development
as a vindicator of traditional ideas and values during his career.
A third aim is to inquire – by looking into his workroom – into how Bulgakov
works when he is fulfilling his intentions. It is assumed that his way of vindicating certain ideas and values was very much dependent on the circumstances. In the sociopolitical situation, in which Bulgakov lived, he was an author who – to quote Lucas –
3
И сейчас я слышу в себе, как взмывает моя мысль, и верю, что я неизмеримо сильнее как
писатель всех, кого я ни знаю… (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 53).
2
"disrupt[ed] the quotidian" (see above) both in terms of values and in terms of telling
the truth).4 It is therefore of particular interest to see how he interpreted his contemporary society and how he mixed facts and fiction, when he expressed his non-conformist
views. It is also of interest to see to what extent he is simplifying, complicating, dramatizing, satirising what he is describing. It will probably also turn out that Bulgakov
sometimes was obliged to compromise and tone down his own views for various reasons. It follows from this approach that it is also necessary to analyse the kind of resistance Bulgakov was exposed to from the side of the dominant institutions of the
Communist regime.
Bulgakov evidently regarded himself as a political writer according to his own
words in his letter to the Soviet Government of 28 March 1930. His duty, he says, is
To struggle against censorship, whatever its nature, and whatever the
power under which it exsists, is my duty as a writer, as are calls for freedom of the press. I am a passionate supporter of that freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn't need
that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn't
need water (translated by and quoted from Curtis 1991, p 106).5
The theoretical framework of the dissertation
As the theoretical framwork of my study I have chosen what is called New Historicism.
A leading representative of this school is Stephen Greenblatt who has elaborated his
theoretical approach in a number of works.6
This kind of approach is focusing on various phenomena associated with the content and the form of a literary text and it shows what is relevant for the analysis of a
text. It also offers a basis for the methodology.
Greenblatt underlines, first of all, that all texts have to be interpreted in their diachronic and cultural context.7 His approach is therefore in a way a socio-anthropological
one.8 The analysis should therefore be carried out "by investigating both the social presence to the world of the literary text and the presence of the social world in the literary
text".9 This means that Bulgakov's texts must be read in relation to his contemporary
Soviet context.
In his article entitled ”Culture” (1990), Greenblatt has also presented his wiew of
the role of literature and of the authors in a given cultural and societal context. He
claims that ”Western literature over a very long period of time has been one of the great
4
In his autobiographical Theatrical Novel Bulgakov's alter ego is advised to lie about his social background in order to have his play accepted by the director of the theatre. But he refuses to lie."Да не стану
я врать" (Sobranie Sochinenii, vol. 4, p 483).
5
Борба с цензурой, какая бы она ни была и при какой бы власти она ни существовала, мой писательский долг, также как и призывы к свободе печати. Я горячий поклонник этой свободы и полагаю, что если кто - нибудь из писателей задумал бы доказывать, что она ему не нужна, он уподобился бы рыбе, публично уверяющей, что ей не нужна вода (Dnevnik. Pis'ma, p 224).
6
Renaissance Self-Fashioning from More to Shakespeare (Chicago & London, 1980); Shakespearian
Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England (Oxford, 1988); “Culture”, Critical Terms for Literary Study ed. by F. Lentricchia and Th. McLaughlin (Chicago and London,
1990/1995), pp 225-232;
7
Greenblatt, “Culture”, pp 225sqq.
8
Greenblatt Renaissance Self-Fashioning, pp 3sqq.
9
Ibid. p 5.
3
institutions for the enforcement of cultural boundaries through praise and blame”.10 At
the same time, he underlines that the authors ”do not merely passively reflect prevailing
ratio of mobility and constraint; they help to shape, articulate, and reproduce it through
their own improvisatory intelligence” (ibid. p 229). He also takes the view that the novel is the literary form that has been ”particularly sensitive to the diverse ways in which
individuals come to terms with the governing patterns of culture” (ibid.).
His second theoretical point is the fact that behind every text there is an intentional
aim. This intension presupposes the presence of an author in the texts. He/she formulates a message that is intended for the readers when or if the text is printed and published."There can be no motiveless creation".11 The text is therefore to be seen as a part
of a communicative process. The analyser is a part of this process. Greenblatt introduces
one of his books by writing: "I began with the desire to speak with the dead".12
The third theoretical point in Greenblatt’s approach to interpretation is that there are
no such things as autonomous literary artefacts.13 All texts make a part of and get their
meaning from the society they belong to and from its cultural environment. Every text
refers to other texts in the present or in the past. The content of a text can therefore be
associated with various traditions in the history of ideas. This point of Greenblatt's view
is that every text has a cultural origin that can be shown by the interpreter.
Finally, Greenblatt explains the success of a text among its readers by introducing
the theoretical concept of “social energy”. A literary text is able to influence the thinking and the feelings of its readers. It has a "capacity to arouse disquiet, pain, fear, the
beating of the heart, pity, laughter, tension, relief, wonder".14 In connection with some
of the studied texts I will make an attempt to apply Greenblatt's ideas about the role of
social energy.
The chosen theroretical framwork can also – as indicated above – be used as a basis
for the methological approach.
The methodological approach
The methodological approach in this dissertation is thus principally based on S. Greenblatt´s theoretical ideas. His claim that all texts have to be interpreted in their historical,
cultural context will be met in the sense that the historical background (as interpreted by
professional historians) of the different texts will be described briefly. Bulgakov's own
blend of facts, fiction and ideology will then be analysed in detail.
Greenblatt's theoretical point that behind every text there is an author’s intentional
aim is the very basis for my investigation of how Bulgakov attempts to vindicate what
he regarded as traditional ideas and values in a fairly hostile social context.15 In my ana–
lysis I intend to uncover his unconformist views of truth and values (unconformist
namely in his contemporary Communist society). Bulgakov was very critical against
10
Greenblatt, “Culture”, p 226.
Greenblatt, Shakespearian Negotiations, p 12.
12
Ibid. p 1.
13
Ibid. p 12.
14
Ibid. p 6.
15
Shentalinsky refers (in Donos na Sokrata, Moskow 2001, p 264) to the Soviet litterary encyclopaedia
(Literaturnaya Entsyklopedia), where it is written: “Весь творческий путь Булгакова – путь классово
враждебного советской действительности человека. Булгаков - типичный выразитель тенденцей
'внутренней эмиграции'“. “All Bulgakov’s artistic way is of a man that due to his social class is hostile
towards Soviet reality. Bulgakov’s attitude is typical of tendencies of inner emigration” (my translation).
11
4
those forces that threatened values he was used to praise. Nor did he share the interpretation of history typical of the Communist regime. How to investigate these aspects of
his works will be indicated in relation to each text to be analysed.
Bulgakov tried to communicate his interpretation of the human condition by means
of his publications. Doing so he was exposed to ideological criticism from the custodians of the more or less conventional Marxist reading of the human condition. This resistance will also be dealt with on the basis of what is already known about his critics.
Greenblatt's third theoretical point is that "there are no such things as autonomous
literary artefacts" and that all authors are dependent on “the systems of signs that constitute a given culture”.16 This aspect of Bulgakov's texts will be dealt with by relating
his ideological points of view to the history of ideas. Some of the views that are expressed are certainly associated with prerevolutionary Russia, while others may appear
as ideas that are deeply rooted in the history of Western civilization.
Greenblatt's idea that literature in the Western world is "one of the great institutions
for the enforcement of cultural boundaries through praise and blame” (see above) will
be the central principle of the methodology of this study. I will thus look for concrete
examples of what Bulgakov blames and praises in a number of his literary works. Or –
to put it in another way – I will study how he articulates and expresses his view on traditional ideas and values, often in contrast to the Marxist interpretation of social and
human reality.
This general approach to the methodology of the investigation will, as already indicated, be supplemented in the beginning of every chapter by more detailed principles for
the analysis of each text.
The selection of texts to be scrutinized and their character
The investigation is based on the analysis of six selected texts. The reasons of the selection are (apart from what is said above on p 3) 1/ to exemplify Bulgakov's varying way
of vindicating traditional ideas and values in different texts and 2/ to follow how his
attitudes to traditional ideas and values are changing from early 1920ies to late 1930ies.
Bulgakov localizes his stories to different places (Kiev, Moscow, Jerusalem) and to
different times, both to the age in which he lived and to antiquity (in "the Jerusalem
chapters" in The Master and Margarita). He is also writing in various literary genres
(novellas, novels and theatrical plays). In his works, there are allusions in various directions: ethical, social, political and historical circumstances. All this is summed up in a
blend of facts and fiction that constitures a basement of his philosophy and ideology.
His special talent gives to his plays the character of a novel and to his novels the character of a play, as Ellendea Proffer once stressed (1984, p 568).
The historical background of the texts to be analysed is changing significantly from
late 1918 to the end of the 1930ies. The texts cover one of the most dramatic phases in
the history of Soviet Russia.17
16
Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, p 4.
I am using the editions of Bulgakov’s texts in Sobranie sochinenii v pyati tomakh, vol. 1-5, Moskva
1989-1990 and, for the plays, in P'esy 1920-kh godov, ed. by A.A. Ninov, Leningrad, Iskusstvo 1989. In
the case of references to some of Bulgakov’s other texts I use Volshebny Fonar', Voronezh 2001 (Izdatelstvo im. E.A. Bolkhovitinova).
17
5
A short presentation of the six selected texts
In the first text to be analysed, The White Guard, Bulgakov presents his own interpretation of what happend in and around Kiev in late 1918 and early 1919. In this traditionally realistic novel the story thus takes place during the time of the ending of the First
World War, of the outburst of an independence movement in Ukraine and of a growing
dominance of the Communist regime in Russia. Some of the characters of the novel are
fictitious others can be identified as historical persons, for instance Skoropadsky and
Petlyura. Bulgakov does not only mix his interpretation of historical facts with his own
fictional contributions but, first and foremost, articulates his own evaluation of the moral standard of the main actors, including the tsar and the leaders of the Ukrainian independence movement. His way of writing makes it therefore possible for the analyser to
uncover what kind of moral qualities and phenomena he is blaming or praising in this
text. The first part of The White Guard was printed in a Soviet periodical Rossiya in
1924 but the entire novel was published abroad, in Paris, only in 1929.
The second text is The Fatal Eggs. In this novella, inspired by H. G.Wells The
Food of the Gods, Bulgakov uses a kind of science fiction, not in order to write about
the future but to expose his contemporary society to satire. The events of The Fatal
Eggs are performed in Moscow in the 1920ies. The novella was written in 1925 but its
story begins in 1921 and comes to an end in 1928. It extrapolates the rapid economic
development during the so-called New Economic Politics (NEP) but deals mainly with
the contemporary situation in the USSR. Bulgakov's focus is on the emerging megalomania of the Soviet Union in its attempts to compete with the leading countries in the
West. Representatives of the new regime were – in their ambitions – taking risks that
lead to disaster and catastrophe. The Fatal Eggs is one of the stories in the Diaboliad
collection that was published in Moscow in 1925. It was "the only real book to be published during Bulgakov's lifetime" in the USSR (Proffer 1984, pp 120sq). The editors
and publishers were fond of the book, while the critics were negative due to its ideological content (ibid.).
The third text is Heart of a Dog. The plot of this text is also located to Moscow in
the period of New Economic Politics. There are no precise indications of years but the
entire social environment of the story is typical of the NEP period. Also this text has the
character of science fiction. In a scientific experiment a famous surgeon manages to
create a man out of a dog by transplantation. But the new man is so abominable that the
scientist decides to turn him back into a dog again. His conclusion of the experiment
and the following scientific discussion with his assistant is that even if it had been possible for him to transplant essential parts of Spinoza he would not have done it. Nature
itself takes care of creating new Spinozas. This novella is most outspoken satire on the
USSR and was not published there until in 1987 during the Glasnost period. That its
publication was never realised in the lifetime of the author was a consequence of the
harsher ideological climate in the Soviet Union from the autumn 1925.
The fourth text is The Days of the Turbins. In this play Bulgakov is again telling the
story of The White Guard but adapting it to the conditions of the theatre. In doing so he
was also obliged to respect the ideological constrains presented by the Repertory Committee. He could not avoid a number of compromises in order to see his play staged at
the Moscow Art Theatre (MKhAT). Through comparisons between the novel and the
play and between the first and the last redaction of the play it will be possible to identify
how Bulgakov changed his way of blaming and praising from The White Guard to that
version of The Days of the Turbins that was finally staged. The play was a complete
6
success among the theatre public in Moscow. The permanence of the play The Days of
the Turbins at the Moscow Art Theatre was in a way saved by Stalin who saw the play
15 times himself. It aroused, however, very aggressive attacs from passionate custodians of the Communist ideology.
The fifth text, Zoyka's Apartment, is also a play. It was written in 1925 and staged
at the Vakhtangov theatre in Moscow in 1926. This play is also laid in the middle of the
1920ies, i.e. in the NEP period. The story takes place in Moscow, which bears the impression both of an ongoing economic boom and of the now well-established Communist regime. This play is of another character than The Days of the Turbins. It is a
mixture of comedy, melodrama and farce. Bulgakov himself regarded it as "a tragical
farce". The text was ideologically controversial. Lunacharsky, the People’s Commissar
of Education, and some of the censors were against the staging of the play from the beginning. Bulgakov was again obliged to compromise and – among other things – to cut
out an important scene of the original redaction. The director of the theatre had to protect the play from its ideological critics but they were not silenced. The play became,
however, a success. Stalin saw it eight times. When the same play was to be staged in
Paris in 1935, Bulgakov had to revise the text a second time in order to protect himself
in a situation, where the ideological control in the USSR had become stronger.
The sixth and final text to be analysed is "The Pilate Novel", sometimes called "The
Jerusalem chapters", a novel within the novel The Master and Margarita.18 "The Pilate
Novel" is localized in a social and historical setting far from Moscow in the 1930ies,
which is the background of the main part of The Master and Margarita. The story of the
little novel takes place in Jerusalem during the last day and night of the life of Jesus
(called Yeshua in the book). Bulgakov shows that he is well acquainted with the historical setting of the time. Some scholars have scrutinized the historical reliability of this
text. Their general view is that Bulgakov is very close to the historical truth in his way
of telling the story of Jesus. This view has become the opinio communis. This opinion
will be exposed to a critical review. Some other researchers claim that the text can be
interpreted as a commentary of his contemporary Soviet society. My main interest is,
however, to investigate how Bulgakov uses a historical text localized to Jerusalem in
antiquity to discuss the role of values in an historical period of serious conflicts. The
text gives the analyser an opportunity to study what Bulgakov is praising or blaming in
a social context that is very different from his contemporary social environment in the
USSR.19
Bulgakov’s social and intellectual background
Bulgakov was born in an academic family in Kiev in 1891. His father was professor of
theology at a local college (Kievskaya Dukhovnaya Akademiya). Already at home,
Bulgakov was taught classical Greek and Latin by his father (Milne 1990, p 85). Bulgakov’s family thus belonged to what is called the Russian intelligensia. Vladimir Nabokov once defined this concept as follows: “the spirit of self-sacrifice, intense participation in political causes or political thought, intense sympathy for the underdog of any
18
I have treated this text i my Licentiate thesis (in Swedish) from 2006 entitled Bulgakovs budskap: En
studie av Pilatusromanen i Master i Margarita. The focus of that study war partly another than in this
one.
19
It should be added that I now and then will draw on Bulgakov's other works in order to find support for
my analysis (see the Bibliography).
7
nationality, fanatical integrity, tragic inability to sink to compromise, true spirit of international responsibility” (cited from Proffer 1984, p 4).
Bulgakov was first – nine years old – sent to the Second Kiev Gymnasium but after
one year he was transferred to the First Kiev Gymnasium that was known for its high
level of teaching. Its education was sometimes regarded as equal to that of at least some
universities (Proffer 1984, p 5). Latin was one of the main subjects at the First Kiev
Gymnasium and Greek was optional. Bulgakov remembered his studies of Latin as
something stimulating. Once he told his friend Pavel Popov that school had left him
with ‘very rich impressions’, far stronger than those of university (Milne 1990, p 85
with footnote 55). One of his teachers had written a monograph on the Roman Bacchanalia, and had a model of the city of Rome in his classroom (Proffer 1984, p 5). The
Latin curriculum included of course Roman authors such as Caesar, Livius, Tacitus and
Cicero. In the White Guard Alexei is referring to his school studies with the words “ut
consequtivum, Gaius Julius Caesar”.20 The classical languages were basic subjects in
the higher schools of this time. Bulgakov therefore had a profound knowledge of classical Greek and Latin literature since his youth. He was particularly fond of classical
Greek authors such as Lukianos and Sofokles (Milne 1990, p 85).
After school he went to the university in 1909, where he studied medicine. He
passed his final examinations in early 1916 and was soon practicing his profession as a
medical doctor but began his career as a writer at the same time. In 1919 he left his
medicine profession and started writing for local theatre in Vladikavkaz, where he lived
at that time. In 1921 he moved to Moscow. When we meet him there, he is already an
established literary author.
Previous studies
No scholars have, to the best of my knowledge, focussed on Bulgakov as a vindicator of
traditional ideas and values. There are only examples of researchers who have incidentally touched upon this aspect of his authorship. I will comment on these contributions when they are relevant for my analysis.
On the other hand, there are a number of secondary sources that have clarified
much of the general background of my own analysis. Here, I want to mention some of
them that have been used by me more than others (for a full list of books referred to –
see the bibliography). The cited authors also cover much of the previous studies of Bulgakov both in the West and in Russia.
Ellendea Proffer's Bulgakov: Life and Work, Ann Arbor 1984. This work is the
classic Bulgakov biography (of the type of "life and letters") cited by almost all modern
Bulgakov scholars.
Lesley Milne's A Critical Biography, Cambridge 1990. As the title of her book indicates, this is a more critical study including many interesting observations and comments.
I have also often used J.A.E. Curtis Manuscripts Don't Burn, Mikhail Bulgakov. A
Life in Letters and Diaries, London 1991.
In Reminiscences about Mikhail Bulgakov (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove
ed. by V. I. Losev in 2006) there is some new information relevant for my study in the
editor's critical commentary to the diaries of and interviews with Bulgakov's three
wives.
20
…ут консекутивум. Кай Юлий Цезарь (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 252).
8
V.I. Losev’s edition of Diary. Letters 1914-1940 (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940,
Moskva 1997) has also been of importance for my study.
The intended readers of the dissertation
In first hand, the dissertation is intended for those who are interested in Russian literature. Secondly the dissertation may attract the interest of researchers in Comparative
literature. As was shown in the very beginning of this chapter, Bulgakov, particularly
his The Master and Margarita, has aroused the interest of some of his colleagues in
different parts of the world.
A third group of readers who might be interested are those who study the history of
ideas. Bulgakov belongs to those authors who articulate his own views on traditional
ideas and values very clearly. Finally, also historians with interest in the political history
of the Soviet Union may find new aspects of the life of an intellectual in the Soviet society in this dissertation.
To write a book intended for readers of very various backgrounds confronts the
author with the problem of selecting pieces of background information that can facilitate the reading and the understanding of the text for the different categories of readers.
Specialists in Russian literature may find some of this information too elementary,
while other readers could have appreciated still more detailed description of the background of the analyses.
9
Chapter 2. Bulgakov's interpretation of history in The White Guard
Introduction
The genesis of the novel
The genesis of the novel The White Guard is fairly well clarified.21 Living in Moscow
Bulgakov seems – partly influenced by the death of his mother in Kiev – to have begun
in 1922 to work on ideas that later were introduced into the text of the novel. He elaborated the manuscript in 1923-1924. In April 1924 he got a contract with the journal Rossiya about the publication of the novel. The first thirteen chapters appeared there in early 1925. It was one of two publications in the USSR of any significance that he would
see in his lifetime. The last seven chapters (14-20, i.e. part three) were not published in
Rossiya, as the journal was soon closed down.
The publication of the entire novel was delayed for many reasons. A pirate edition
appeared in Riga in 1927, but the author denounced this version as “illiterate” (the last
chapters had been “concocted” by the editors on the basis of his play The Days of the
Turbins). At the same time, Bulgakov was himself rewriting parts of the text, particularly the last chapters. The ideological environment became more and more difficult to
handle for Bulgakov. Lesley Milne has described this change very much to the point: “If
the novel The White Guard was swimming across the current in 1925, by 1928 it was
battling against the flood” (Milne 1990, p 75).
The entire novel was, finally, published in Paris in 1927-1929. The first 11 chapters
appeared there in one volume in 1927 (with a text identical with that of the Rossiya publication). In 1929 the chapters 12-20 appeared in another volume. Bulgakov authorized
this Paris edition as the legitimate one. He also prescribed that it should be used for future publications in the Soviet Union (Milne 1990, p 71).
The story of The White Guard was the literary work that Bulgakov loved most of
his works, at least in the middle of the 1920-ies (Milne 1990, p 69). It takes place in
Kiev in late 1918 and early 1919. Battles were at that time fought with the participation
of the pro-Tsarist White Russians, the Germans and hetman Skoropadsky, the Ukrainian
rural nationalists led by Petlyura, and the Bolsheviks. The book is mainly based on the
author’s own experience. He wrote later in a short story entitled Kiev Gorod:
The inhabitants of Kiev reckon that there were eighteen changes of power.
Some stay-at-home memoirists counted up to twelve of them; I can tell
you that there were precisely fourteen; and what’s more, I personally lived
through ten of them (translated by and quoted from Curtis 1991, p 1).22
As Curtis writes, “Bulgakov was to comment subsequently” (ibid.). I will return to the
idea of Bulgakov as a commentator of the historical events of 1918 and early 1919.
21
Milne has summed up what is known about that in her book Mikhail Bulgakov: a Critical Biography
from 1990 (pp 69-74).
22
[…] по счету киевлян, у них было 18 переворотов. Некоторые из теплушечных мемуаристов
насчитали их 12; я точно могу сообщить, что их было 14, причем 10 из них я лично пережил. Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 308.
10
The purpose of the chapter
The purpose of this chapter is, initially, to study how Bulgakov describes and comments
the historical course of events in Kiev and Ukraine in the years 1918-1919 against the
background of the ending of the First World War. This analysis will be made by means
of a comparison between the view of modern historians and Bulgakov’s description. It
can be assumed in advance that he – being a novelist – blends historical facts with pure
fiction. Secondly, the aim is to study how he comments his own description of what
happened during the critical period of the transition from the Russian Empire to the Soviet Regime. Particularly, the focus is on what he regards as worth praising and what he
regards worth blaming in the actions of the main actors in the dramatic changes of
1918-1919.
The results of the study are intended to contribute to a better understanding both of
how Bulgakov interpreted the historical background of his novel and of how he looked
upon the moral qualities of the main actors mentioned in the novel during the conflicts
in and around Kiev.
Previous studies
J.A.E.Curtis articulates (in the passage just quoted above) the idea of Bulgakov as being
a commentator of the historical process in his novel. Her idea brings up the question of
how he has been judged as a commentator of contemporary history.
Proffer has expressed her general view of Bulgakov's way of writing about contemporary history in the following way:
White Guard represents, I think, an honest effort to portray recent history,
which is not to say that Bulgakov is not wrong or misleading about a
number of things. However, I do not think it can be seen as a compromise
work, done to satisfy a censor. The view of history is the author’s view,
honestly given (Proffer 1984, p 154).
I am going to problematize her opinion that is not based on any detailed analysis of the
text. Nor is her evaluation of Bulgakov as a historian particularly critical.
Milne has dedicated one chapter of her Critical Biography to The White Guard
(1990, pp 69-95) but she does not discuss the historical reliability of the novel. On the
other hand, she deals – to some extent – with what kind of virtues Bulgakov is praising
in his novel. I will later have occasion to comment on her views in this respect.
As Proffer has shown, some Soviet scholars have criticized Bulgakov for not understanding the “historical process” when describing the struggles around Kiev (Proffer
1984, p 154). I see no use, however, in interfering here with the Marxist discussion of
history.
To the best of my knowledge, there has thus not been any real discussion about the
question of how Bulgakov expressed his blame and praise through a combination of
facts and fiction when writing The White Guard. I am therefore moving into an unknown territory of knowledge well aware of both the risks and the possibilities.
11
A general historical background 23
From early history, Ukraine (its name means “borderland”) has been a territory where
different interests have been trying to get hold of its fertile land. Its history is therefore
rather complex. A predecessor of modern Ukraine was the Kiev reign that existed during the early middle ages.
The Cossacks, various groups of more or less independent people under the leadership of a Hetman, have often played an important role in the history of Ukraine. They
were sometimes fighting against the Turks and the Tatars. Sometimes they asked the
Sultan’s protection against Russia. When a larger part of Ukraine became a part of Poland in 1569, there were several Cossack revolts against Poland. The biggest one took
place in 1648. The leader of the revolt was Bogdan Khmelnitsky. In 1654 he asked Russia to protect Ukraine.
In 1667 the Eastern part of Ukraine (east of Dnepr) was ceded to Russia by Poland
and was now given the name of “Malorossia” (“Little Russia”). It was first an independent area. The Cossacks tried to defend their autonomy led by the Hetmanate, which
was an old Ukrainian way of ruling that had its stronghold among the nobles. The most
famous hetman in history was Ivan Mazepa. During the Great Northern War in the beginning of the 18th century the Ukrainians were supposed to support the tsarist army and
not only to fight their traditional enemies: the Polish, the Tatars and the Ottoman regime. Mazepa sided however with Charles XII and the Swedes but the battle of Poltava
in 1709 put an end to the Ukrainians’ attempt to break away from Russia. The traditional autonomy of the Hetmanate, which had been guaranteed in 1654, was reduced after
the Great Northern War and Malorossia became an integrated part of Russia. When Poland was divided in 1772 and in 1793, one part of Ukraine, Galicia, became a province
within the Austrian (Habsburgian) empire, while Podolia and Volhynia became Russian
provinces.
In the middle of the 19th century, a Ukrainian movement for independence from
Russia was taking shape. The upper classes were against this movement. In 1876, the
Russian authorities banned Ukrainian language and literature. The Russian revolution in
1917 gave, however, a new strength to the independence movement. As the Minister of
War in the Council of the free Ukraine, Simon Petlyura proclaimed the Ukrainian republic on November 20, 1917. On February 9,1918 he signed a treaty about a separate
peace with Austria, Turkey, Bulgaria and Germany. From March to December 1918,
Ukraine was ruled by a conservative regime headed by hetman Skoropadsky. Petlyura
led a peasant revolt against this regime in late 1918. In 1919 Petlyura was fighting
against the Bolsheviks, together with general Denikin’s White army. He also gave order
to all Ukrainians in the Russian armies to return home.24 Despite that the Bolsheviks
succeeded in making Ukraine a Soviet republic in 1920. During the years 1918 –1921
Ukraine had nine different governments. In the treaty of 1921 in Riga, Poland received
a big part of Ukraine (Galicia). Another parts of Ukraine that had belonged to the Austrian empire became parts of Czechoslovakia and Rumania. Again, Ukraine was back to
its position as a dependent border country. The idea of an independent Ukraine was
dead during the Soviet years.
23
The description of the general historical background is mainly based on O.Subtelny, Ukraine: A History, Toronto 1988, reprinted in 1989.
24
N.Lowe, Mastering Twentieth-century Russian History, New York 2002, p 167.
12
Ukraine and Russia have thus been closely connected for many centuries. The medieval Kiev is for instance regarded as the “mother” of all Russian cities. Christianity was
first established in Kiev and still, in Bulgakov’s time, Kiev was sometimes called “the
Russian Jerusalem”. After the October revolution the hardest resistance against the Red
Army and the Bolsheviks took place in Western Ukraine.
The general history of Ukraine thus illustrates the meaning of the name of the country that is "the borderland". Today, in the beginning of the 21th century the same character is still evident.
The White Guard is a historical novel. The interpretation of any literary text dealing
with a historical theme necessitates a discussion of the reliability of the description of
the historical background. Four different views on this issue are thinkable a priori: 1/
the author does not aim at any truthfulness – the historical background is only a fictitious coulisse of the main narrative 2/ the author has – on the contrary – the ambition of
presenting a historical background that is as close as possible to the one advocated by
professional historians 3/ the author’s aim is to describe what the actors of his/her story
believed to be the historical truth or, finally, 4/ the author wants – for some reason – to
give his/her very own personal view of the historical course of events.
The main hypothesis in this chapter is that an analysis of a number of central
themes in the novel will decide, which of these four alternatives that is applicable in the
case of The White Guard. The analysis will also show Bulgakov’s relation to facts and
fiction in his novel and – at the same time – create a basis for conclusions about his way
of interpreting history in moral terms. The themes of the novel that have been chosen
for the analysis are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The role of the tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Church.
The role of "the Moscow events" and their consequences
The role of hetman Skoropadsky.
The role of the Ukrainian language
The role of Petlyura
The role of the Germans
The role of the White army and its supporters
In my discussion of each theme I will first give the reader an idea of how a professional
historian describes and interprets facts related to the theme under discussion. Then I will
quote in an English translation (made by M. Glenny) some relevant text passages (to be
found in Russian in footnotes to offer readers familiar with Russian the possibility of
reading the original text).
When turning to the question how the text of the novel should be understood as the
result of its author’s views and prejudices, I will make a distinction between Bulgakov's
role as reporter basing his writing on his own observations in Kiev in late 1918 and early 191925 and his role as a commentator of the actors and their actions during the confused situation in Kiev. As a commentator he can be assemed to reveal his intention
with his text more openly than as a reporter. His way of reporting and his way of com25
To some extent Bulgakov was himself a journalist. He was writing in various newspapers in Vladikavkaz, Grozny and Moscow.
13
menting are integrated in the thext. The difference between his role as a reporter and his
role as a commentator is therefore not always completely distinct but, after all, it is still
possible distinguish between the two. It should finally be kept in mind that he might
have changed his views somewhat over time. He wrote and rewrote the novel towards
the middle of the 1920ies, when he must have been fairly well informed about the background of the political and military situation in and around Kiev in 1918-1919, particularly in comparison with the time when he himself experienced and witnessed the confused situation in the city during the same period.
Analysis
The role of the tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Church
The first issue to be dealt with is how Bulgakov interprets the role of the tsarist monarchy in the crisis of Russia at the end of the First World War and how he regards the importance of the tsarist regime for the Russian Empire as well as that of the Orthodox
Church.
Background: The view of a professional historian 26
The fall of the Russian Empire and its tsarist regime, which for most of its inhabitants of
all social groups had seemed incredible, was a fact in early 1917. The situation in
Ukraine was not only influenced by the fall of the Russian Empire but also by the fall of
the Austrian and the Ottoman Empires that took place one or two years later.
In the First World War, the tsarist government was exposed to a test that it was unable to meet. It was incapable of supplying its soldiers with the materiel needed for
modern fighting. It was driving thousands and thousands into the battle, losing millions
of men. The regime therefore lost the loyalty of almost all elements of the population.
On March 15, 1917 Nicholas II abdicated. Kerensky, who belonged to the Socialist
Revolutionaries, took over a provisional Government (from July until November 1917).
The Kerensky regime took steps to continue the war against Germany. In July 1917 an
offensive was initiated in Galicia, but the Russian armies again collapsed. The position
of the Provisional Government became untenable. In the confused situation Lenin and
the Bolsheviks seized power by October/November 1917.
The description of the historical events in some text passages
In the following four short passages Bulgakov describes the attitudes of the main characters of his novel to the tsar and their reaction to his abdication. In the first passage the
members of the Turbin family are sure that the only ruler in Russia should be a tsar.
Alexei Turbin wishes that Tsar Alexander I, present in the novel in the form of a painting, could save them from Petlyura, now the leader of the Ukrainian nationalists.
Can you save this doomed building, Tsar Alexander, with all the regiments of Borodino? Why don't you come alive and lead them down from
the canvas? They'd smash Petlyura all right (Glenny, p 108).27
26
The source of this passage is Lowe 2002, pp 75sqq.
14
Alexei Turbin also expresses his hate against Kerensky and calls him “a socialist” a
mark setting that meant something negative in his view.
I am […] a monarchist […]. And of all socialists I most detest Alexander
Kerensky (Glenny, p 86).28
In the next passage the Turbins and their friends express their critical view on the Nikolas II but drink to the emperor’s health.
‘He can never, never be forgiven for his abdication at Dno Station. Never.
But we have learned by bitter experience now, and we know that only the
monarchy can save Russia. Therefore if the Tsar is dead – long live the
Tsar!’ shouted Alexei and raised his glass.
‘Hurrah! Hur-ra-ah! Hur-ra-ah!’ The threefold cry roared across the dining-room […]. Quite clearly […] came a thick wave of sound […] as a
bell: ‘…God Save His Majesty, Tsar of all Russia…’ (Glenny, pp 48sq).29
In the same passage, Myshlaevsky tells the others what happened when he, recently in
the theatre, was watching the play Paul the First
‘Russia acknowledges only one Orthodox faith and one Tsar!’ shouted
Myshlaevsky […]. ‘Right! Week ago … at the theatre… went to see Paul
the First […] and when the actor said those words I could not keep quiet
and I shouted out "Right" - and d'you know what? Everyone clapped’.
(Glenny, p 49).30
In the last passage, Vasilisa, who lives in same house as the Turbins, claims that he is a
democrat but as Russia is a backward country the present revolution has turned into an
uncontrolled uprising. Therefore he is convinced that the only regime possible in Russia
is monarchy. He could even accept a form of a severe dictatorship
‘here in Russia, this most backward country, the revolution has already
degenerated into savagery and chaos […]. I'm a convinced democrat […]
but now that I've seen with my own eyes what this revolution's turning into, then I swear to you I am horribly convinced that there's only one thing
27
Разве ты, Александр, спасешь Бородинскими полками гибнущий дом? Оживи, сведи их с полотна! Они побили бы Петлюру (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 264).
28
Я […] монархист[…] а из всех социалистов больше всех ненавижу Александра Федоровича
Керенского (ibid.).
29
Ему никогда, никогда не простится его отречение на станции Дно.Никогда. Но все равно, мы
теперь научены горьким опытом и знаем, что спасти Россию может только монархия. Поэтоиу
если император мертв, да здравствует император! – Турбин крикнул и поднял стакан
Ур-ра! Ур-ра!Ур-ра!! – трижды в грохоте пронеслось по столовой.[…] Сверху просачивалась […]
густая […] волна […] как колокол […] …си-ильный, де-ержавный, царрр-ствуй на славу. […] (ibid.
p 212).
30
На Руси возможно только одно: вера православная власть самодержавная!... кричал Мышлаевский. - Верно!
Я…был на "Павле Первом"…неделю тому назад…[…] - и когда артист произнес эти слова, я не
выдержал и крикнул: "верно!" - что ж вы думаете кругом зааплодировали (ibid. p 213).
15
that can save us… […]’. ‘Autocracy. Yes, sir … the most ruthless dictatioship imaginable…it's our only hope… Autocracy’ (Glenny, pp 244sq).31
The view of the reporter Bulgakov
Bulgakov describes, as we have seen, how the Turbins drink for the tsar (though he has
already been executed) and sing the tsarist hymn. At the same time, they did not forgive
tsar Nicholas II for having abdicated. Many of the actors in the novel were convinced
that – due to their bitter experience – monarchy was the only possible form of government in Russia (see above and Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 212). Some of them expressed their personal hatred towards Kerensky (see above).
Bulgakov also tells how Alexei Turbin – being in his old Gymnasium that became a
military headquarters during the battle of Kiev – is thinking about his ancient studies
and his dreams as a young man (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 252). The future had
come out to be completely different than his expectations. Now he and his friends were
there to protect what was left of their beloved Russia. For the moment, they had to defend Kiev from the attack of Petlyura and his men. At the same time, they wished that
the tsar had been able to save them from Petlyura (above and Sobranie sochinenii, vol.
1, p 264).
Bulgakov’s characters in The White Guard were royalists and all of them, in principle, loyal towards the tsarist regime and the Russian Empire. On the stove in Turbin’s
apartment it was, for instance, written “Long live monarchy. Kill Petlyura!” (Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 183 sq). Bulgakov also demonstrates how deep their hatred against
Petlyura was, when he describes how an officer orders – praeposterously – the cadets to
sing as loudly as possible so that Petlyura would die from it (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1,
p 256). By all means the monarchy must be saved.
The importance and role of the Orthodox Church is also taken for granted in the
novel. In its very beginning, Alexei turns to father Alexander to find some consolation
from the priest in his sorrow about his mother´s death and about the chaotic situation in
Kiev. The priest is however also very pessimistic about the situation after the revolution
and quotes two lines from the Apocalypse to illustrate his interpretation of the state of
the world.32
The view of the commentator Bulgakov
In The White Guard, Bulgakov’s way of telling has its focus on Kiev and its Ukrainian
surroundings. He does not describe – in his role as commentator – the new political situation in Europe at the end of 1918 as a consequence of the First World War, which
also is fundamental for the understanding of the development in Kiev and Ukraine.
As a commentator Bulgakov was, however, not totally one-eyed in his view of the
situation in Ukraine in 1918. He did know that the entire Russia was a backward coun-
31
У нас в России, в стране, несомненно, наиболее отсталой, революция уже выродилась в
пугачевщину…[…] я убежденный демократ […] но теперь, когда я своими глазами увидел, во что
все это выливается, клянусь вам, у меня является зловещая уверенность, что спасти нас может
только одно…[…] Самодержавие. Дас… Злейшая диктатура, какую можно только себе
представить… Самодержавие… (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, pp 379sq).
32
Apocalyptic mood is one of the main themes of The White Guard cf. G. Lesskis & K. Atarova, Putevodotel' po romanu Bulgakova Master i Margarita, Moscow 2007, p 35.
16
try and its population ignorant.33 He also knew how badly White officers and landowners were treating the muzhiks (The White Guard, passim). Thus, as a commentator Bulgakov seems to indicate that tsarist Russia needed social reforms (Sobranie sochinenii,
vol.1, pp 237 sq). This interpretation can be confirmed by a quotation from an essay
written in 1919. Here he underlines for instance that the Russians "will pay [in the future] for the depraving of the workers" (translated by and cited from Curtis 1991, p
18).34 What kind of regime he would have approved of is not clear. Possibly he was
thinking of a transformation of the tsarist regime into some kind of a constitutional
monarchy.
At the same time, Bulgakov seemed to share the opinions of his main characters in
the novel believing that the only possible regime in Russia was a monarchy. Disapproving the creation of the Russian Republic by Kerensky he was at the same time probably
convinced – as some of his characters – that the tsar should not have abdicated in 1917.
Bulgakov appears to have had two favourites among previous Russian tsars. He
shows in the novel how Peter I was highly estimated by the main characters referring to
a book for children entitled The Shipwright of Saardam (see Milne 1990, p 77). Its title
was written on the stove in the home of the Turbins. Its theme was Peter the Great who
had modernized and Europeanized Russia after the dominance of the Mongolians. Peter
was described in the book as a “carpenter, warrior and statesman” (ibid.). Another favourite was Alexander I. Alexei Turbin wished, as we have seen, that this tsar had been
able to lead the warriors from Borodino against Petlyura in order to save Russia.
But despite his tsarist preferences Bulgakov wrote in his diary in April 1924, when
he had heard of a manifesto attributed to Grand Duke Nikolay Nikolayevich: “Let the
devil take all Romanovs! That is the last thing we need now”, my translation).35 This
statement should probably be interpreted against the background of the everyday problems and difficulties that characterized Bulgakov's life at that time and not necessarily
as an indication of a changed political view.
Thus, Bulgakov reveals in his comments that he was a dedicated supporter of the
tsarist regime in Russia in 1918. He seems to have been interested in the preservation of
the traditional Russian monarchy (at least in a revised form) as well as that of the Orthodox Church. He blames, however, tsar Nicholas II openly for having abdicated in
1917.
The second step of the analysis deals with how Bulgakov interprets the establishing of
the Communist regime in Moscow in 1918 and its immediate consequences.
33
Bulgakov was very critical in his view of the Russian people. In his diary he wrote "Дикий мы, темный, несчастный народ" ("We are wild, ignorant and unhappy people" cited from Dnevnik.Pis'ma 19141940, p 60, my translation). In The Heart of a Dog professor Preobrazhensky claims that Russia was 200
years behind Europe.
34
"Нужно будет платить… за развращение рабочих…" (Volshebny Fonar', p 720). The entire text of
the essay is reproduced (in Russian and English) in Appendix 2.
35
Черт бы взял всех Романовых! Их не хваталою (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 65).
17
The Bolshevik revolution took place in Petrograd in October/November 1917. A new
government was set up and the capital was moved to Moscow. The establishment of a
Communist government in this city (after October 1917) led to a number of great
changes in Russia (Bulgakov refers to all this as "the Moscow disease", or in Russian
moskovskaya bolezn).
One of the most important members of the new government was Trotsky. He was
second only to Lenin in the Politburo. Trotsky first became commissar of foreign affairs. As a commissar of war, he was credited with the task of creating, inspiring, and
directing the Red Army. In general, he backed Lenin’s major policy innovations.
Since the Bolsheviks could not fight the Germans any longer, they were obliged to
sign the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany in March 1918. Trotsky was the one who
had negotiated the treaty. By this treaty, the Communists acknowledged the loss of Poland, Ukraine, Finland, and the Baltic states. The treaty led to an easier situation for
Germany, as their Eastern front ceased to exist. But the situation was still difficult for
the Central Powers and there was a serious lack of food and other supplies, particularly
in their big cities.
For the Germans the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was a great success. A substantial part
of the German troops was moved from east to west but the Germans and their allies
could still dominate parts of Eastern Europe through its military forces. The effects of
the naval blockade of the Entente were diminished due to considerable quantities of
foodstuffs from Ukraine.
Through the final peace treaty after the first World War, signed in Versailles 1919
and a number of subsequent agreements regarding the Western border of the Soviet Union, the map of Europe was changed and the appearance of new states was confirmed:
Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Also Hungary and Poland became independent
states. A Southern Slavic country was established later named Yugoslavia. The general
tendency of the time was to create states built upon a common national identity.
After Lenin’s death in January 1924 Trotsky was removed from Commissariat of
War. In 1926 he was expelled from the Politburo. In 1928 Stalin exiled him to Central
Asia and in 1929 from the entire USSR. Thus, when the first parts of the novel were
published in April and May 1925, Trotsky was beginning to lose his previous influential
position. When the entire novel appeared in Paris 1929, he was banned from the USSR.
The description of the historical events in two text passages
In the following text passages Bulgakov illustrates two different attitudes to the new
political situation after the Bolshevik revolution 1917.
He shows in the first passage how certain actors like the so-called Shpolyansky reacted to the complex political situation after "the Moscow events".37 Shpolyansky is
said to have come from St Petersburg/Petrograd and is described as a well-to-do person,
a poet and a club visitor with lavish habits. He is also decribed as a traitor during the
battle of Kiev.
36
The source is Lowe 2002, pp 119sqq.
Milne has expressed her view of him in the following way: “[Shpolyansky]… is plotted round the historical activities in Kiev at the end of 1918 of the Formalist critic Viktor Shklovsky… putting, as did
Shklovsky, sugar in the petrol of the Hetman’s armoured cars… “ (Milne 1990, p 76; cf. Vospominania o
Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 640).
37
18
[of armoured cars] there should have been no less than four. And it can be
stated with certainty that if the other three armoured cars had shown up,
Colonel Bolbotun would have been forced to evacuate Pechorsk. But they
did not appear. This happened because no less a person than the celebrated
Lieutenant Mikhail Shpolyansky, who had been personally decorated with
the St George's Cross by Alexander Kerensky in May 1917, was appointed
to command one of the four excellent vehicles which comprised the Hetman's armoured car troup […]. Shpolyansky made himself known
throughout the City as soon as he arrived there from St Petersburg [...].
The Hetman's City perished three hours earlier than it should have done
because on the evening of December 2nd 1918, in The Ashes club, Mikhail Shpolyansky announced the following […]: 'They’re all swine – the
Hetman, and Petlyura too. But Petlyura's worse, because he's an antiSemite as well. But that's not the real trouble. The fact is I'm bored, because it's so long since I threw any bombs' (Glenny, pp 135sq).38
In the next textpassage, Shpolyansky is still the main character:
Shpolyansky, who was officer of the day […] said: 'You must realise that
the chief question is: are we doing right to stand by this Hetman? [...].
Who knows, maybe this clash between Petlyura and the Hetman is historically inevitable and that out of it will emerge a third historic force which
may be fated to win' […] Shchur […] gave a knowing wink and nodded
towards the north-east […] 'Sugar'. 'Uh-huh', replied Shpolyansky […]. By
the morning of the fourteenth, three vehicles which on the day before had
been in perfect running order […] were immobilised as completely as
though striken with paralysis (Glenny, pp 141sq).39
Quite another attitude showed the Turbins and their friends in the folowing text passage.
Bulgakov’s favourite characters in the novel discuss the situation in a very emotional
38
Черепах-то должно было подойти целых четыре. И уверенно можно сказать, что, подойди они,
полковник Болботун вынужден был бы удалиться с Печерска. Но они не подошли. […] потому,
что […] попал в качестве командира второй машины […] знаменитый прапорщик, лично
получивший в мае 1917 года из рук Александра Федоровича Керенского Георгиевский крест,
Михаил Семенович Шполянский […]. Всему городу Михаил Семенович стал известен немедленно
по приезде своем из города Санкт-Петербурга.[…] Гетманский Город погиб часа на три раньше,
чем ему следовало бы, именно из-за того, что Михаил Семенович второго декабря, 1918 года
вечером в "Прахе" заявил […].
- Все мерзавцы. И гетман и Петлюра. Но Петлюра, кроме того, еще и погромщик. Самое главное,
впрочем, не в этом. Мне стало скучно, потому что я давно не бросал бомб.[…] (Sobranie sochinenii,
vol. 1, p 289).
39
Шполянский, дежурный по девизиону, говорил в сумерках так:
- Вы знаете, друзья, в сущности говоря, большой вопрос, правильно мы делаем, отстаивая этого
гетмана […] столкновение Петлюры с гетманом исторически показано, и из этого столкновения
должна родиться третья историческая сила и, возможно, единственно правильная […]. Щур хитро
прищурился и подмигнул собеседникам куда-то на северо-восток.
[…]- Сахар?
- Угу, - ответил Михаил Семеновмч […]. Совершенно здоровые еще на кануне машины […] в утро
четырнадцатого декабря не могли двинуться с места…(ibid. p 293)
19
way. They believe they understand what should be done to save Ukraine and Russia.
The main enemy was, according to them, Trotsky.
'But you must realise' said Karas, 'that the Germans would never have allowed the formation of a loyalist army – they are too afraid of it'. 'Wrong!'
exclaimed Alexei sharply. 'All that was needed was someone with a good
head on his shoulders and we could have always come to terms with the
Hetman. Then we should have made it clear to the Germans that we were
no threat to them. That war is over, and we have lost it. Now we have
something much worse on our hands, much worse than the war, worse
than the Germans, worse than anything on earth – and that is Trotsky. We
should have said to the Germans – you need wheat and sugar, don't you?
Right – take all you want and feed your troops. Occupy the Ukraine if you
like, only help us. Let us form our army – it will be to your advantage,
we'll help you to keep order in the Ukraine and prevent these Godforsaken peasants of ours from catching the Moscow disease. If there were
a Russian-manned army in the City now we would be insulated from Moscow by a wall of steel. And as for Petlyura …k-khh…' […] 'Stop!'
Shervinsky stood up. 'Wait. I must speak in defense of the Hetman. I admit some mistakes were made, but the Hetman's plan was fundamentally
correct. He knows how to be diplomatic. First of all a Ukrainian state
…then the Hetman would have done exactly as you say – a Russianmanned army and no nonsense' (Glenny, pp 45sq).40
In the novel, Alexei Turbin is described as an outspoken anti-Communist. He is said to
have been “aged and gloomy” since October 25, 1917, i.e. the very day of the Red revolution in Petrograd (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 184). It is he who uses the derogative
expression “The Moscow disease” about the following events in Moscow and their immediate consequences. He describes the “disease” as being of an epidemic character, as
he fears that Ukraine could be contaminated. The worst threat is Trotsky according to
Alexei (The White Guard passim).
Bulgakov also tells how people were fleeing from the Bolsheviks and from St Petersburg/Petrograd and Moscow to Kiev during the winter 1918. They are described in a
mocking tone as a mixed set of officers, pederasts, bankers, prostitutes, poets – all of
them hating the Bolsheviks. Their arrival is said to have stimulated various establish40
-Ты пойми- заговорил Карась, что немцы не позволили бы формировать армию, они боятся ее.
- Неправда!- тоненько воскликнул Турбин. – Нужно только иметь голову на плечах и всегда
можно было бы столковатся с гетманом. Нужно было бы немцам объяснить, что мы им не опасны.
Кончено. Война нами проиграна! У нас теперь другое, более страшное,чем война,чем немцы, чем
все на свете. У нас – Троцкий. Вот что нужно было сказать немцам: вам нужен сахар,хлеб? Берите,
лопайте, кормите солдат. Подавитесь, но только помогите. Дайте формироваться, ведь это вам же
лучше, мы вам поможем удержать порядок на Украине, чтобы наши богоносцы не заболели
московской болезнью. И будь сейчас русская армия в Городе, мы бы железной стеной были
отторжены от Москвы. А Петлюру … к-х - Стой! - Шервинский встал. - Погоди. Я должен сказать
в защиту гетмана. Правда, ошибки были допущены, но план у гетмана был правильный. О, он
липломат. Край украинский…Впоследствии же гетман сделал бы именно так, как ты говоришь
русская армия и никаких гвозлей. (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, pp 209sq).
20
ments of amusements. New theatres were opened, lots of new cafés, the best pens from
both St Petersburg and Moscow were writing in Kiev’s newspapers etc. (Sobranie sochinenii, Vol.1, pp 219sq).
One of these refugees was Shpolyansky. Bulgakov describes (in the passage
above) the way of life and the dubious character of this semi-ficitious character (see
above footnote II). He had served under Kerensky in 1917, betrayed later the hetman in
1918 and finally sided with the Bolsheviks and went to Moscow. He also is the chairman of a Futurist group of poets called ”The Magnetic Triolet” (Magnitny triolet, Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, p 288). Shpolyansky is thus described as an example of an
amoral survivor. He once faked his own death and then went on with his vicious lifestyle (Sobaraniye sochinenii, vol.1, p 294). Shpolyansky seems to entertain himself
when supporting the Bolsheviks. After having participated in an uproar meeting in the
city of Kiev and helping his friend a Bolshevik agitator to flee, Shpolyansky disappears
dressed in exclusive clothes (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, pp 393sqq).
According to Bulgakov’s interpretation of history in The White Guard, there was nothing worse than the Bolsheviks and Trotsky. In the novel he never mentions the name of
Lenin but that of Trotsky several times. Probably Bulgakov had listened himself to
Trotsky in July 1919, when the latter was giving a speech in Kiev (Dnevnik. Pis'ma
1914-1940, p 103).
In his already mentioned essay from 1919 Bulgakov also expresses his view of the
critical political situation in Russia due to the social unrest in an explicit way:
We will have to pay for the insanity of the March days [the first 1917
Revolution], for the insanity of the October days [in 1917], for the treachery of the Ukrainian separatists, for the depraving of the workers, for Brest
[the 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk], for insane use of the presses to print
money … for everything! And we will pay... (translated by and quoted
from Curtis 1991, p 18).41
When Bulgakov describes how one of his characters claims that it would have been
possible to fight the Red troops by organising a strong White army with the acceptance
of the Germans and in collaboration with the hetman, he probably expresses his own
political judgement.
As a commentator, Bulgakov also takes the view that political weathercocks must
be seen as partly responsible for much of the situation in Kiev. Bulgakov regards the
semi-fictitious Shpolyansky’s character as the worst of all, as he has collaborated first
with Kerensky and finally with the Bolsheviks. The deed to put sugar in the petrol of
some armoured cars in the service of the hetman was in reality performed by Viktor
Shklovsky (see footnote II). This act had serious consequences not only for the hetman
but also for the defence of Kiev. In the eyes of Bulgakov, Shpolyansky represented the
prototype of a detestable traitor. He was neither loyal to the tsar nor to the hetman. As
he belonged to the upper layers of society, he also was a traitor of his own social class.
He was just entertaining himself playing the role of one who sympathized with the Bolsheviks.
41
See Appendix 2.
21
In the negative description of “The Magnetic Triolet”, the chairman of which was
Shpolyansky, also Bulgakov’s attitude towards modernistic arts becomes visible.42 He
seems to detest these new forms of literature.
It should also be noticed that Bulgakov, in his portrait of Shpolyansky, demonstrates that he is well informed about the Marxist view of the predestinated historical
process (see above). As we have seen in the introduction to this chapter (p III), he was
criticised by Soviet scholars for not understanding the “historical process” in the struggles around Kiev. Evidently, however, he was well aware of the existence of Marxist
explanation of historical change. He also lets Vasilisa express this view: “Don't think I
reject the revolution - oh no, I fully understand the historical reasons which caused it
all” (Glenny, p 244).43
In short, Bulgakov seems to have expressed his strong personal feelings to and view
of “the Moscow disease” most openly in the description of his favourite hero Alexei
Turbin, in the portrait of the abominable Shpolyansky and by means of his frequent
negative allusions to Trotsky. At the same time he openly regrets the fact that it had not
been possible to throw back the Communists with the help of a strong White army. Evidently Bulgakov also held that the White military elite represented the traditional values
of Russia. Here, it is very clear what he blames and what he praises.
The role of hetman Skoropadsky
The next task is to study how Bulgakov describes and comments the role of the hetman
in the crisis of 1918 against the background of the established historical interpretation.
As was indicated above (p IV), the Hetmanate was an old Ukrainian way of ruling,
which had its stronghold among the nobles. Skoropadsky had been proclaimed hetman
on April 29, 1918. He then announced the formal establishment of a “Ukrainian State”
in conscious contrast to “The Ukrainian National Republic” which had been proclaimed
by the Central Rada (the Central Coucil, being the Ukranian Government) in 1917. On
November 14, 1918, the hetman of Ukraine appointed a new cabinet consisting mostly
of Russian monarchists. He had also announced an Act of Federation, which committed
him to link Ukraine with a future non-Bolshevik Russian state. The aim of the Act of
Federation was to gain the support of anti-Bolshevik Russians and the favour of the Entente that had now been victorious in the First World War. In late 1918 he was ready to
accept a federation between Ukraine and Russia. But his ultimate goal was in fact to
create an independent Ukraine.
The hetman was an efficient organizer and achieved much in a short time. He possessed the sole authority to issue all the laws, to appoint the cabinet, to control foreign
affairs and the army and he acted as the highest judge. Within few months order was
restored in Ukraine. Within the education system hetman’s government was particularly
42
A “triolet” is a form of poetry popular in French literature. At the same time, however, Elsa Triolet was
the name of the sister of Lili Brik, the girl friend of Mayakovsky. Has Bulgakov possibly – by this reference – alluded to Mayakovsky as a leading Futurist and to the "ménage à trois" lived by Mayakovsky, Lili
Brik and her husband?
43
…'Вы не думайте, чтобы я отрицал революцию, о нет, я прекрасно понимаю исторические причины вызвавшие все это/ (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 379).
44
The source of is Subtelny 1989, pp 345sqq.
22
successful. Several million Ukrainian-language textbooks were printed and Ukrainian
language was introduced into most of the schools. Two Ukrainian universities and a
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences were also established.
The ambition of Skoropadsky was to do away with some of the Central Rada’s
“Socialist experiments”, a policy that was not popular in all layers of society. He should
therefore be seen as a representative of the landowners, as he placed a strong emphasis
on the sanctity of private property. He was also criticized by many opinion makers for
cooperating with the Germans interested in Ukrainian foodstuff, though it was in fact
the Central Rada and Petlyura who had signed the agreement on delivering food supply
to German and Austrian cities.
The criticism of the hetman increased during 1918. Many Ukrainians accused him
of having too close relations with the Russian Cadet party. The opposition, led by Petlyura and a Directory, became stronger and at last the Directory’s forces entered Kiev
on December14. The hetman now left Ukraine together with the Germans. From late
1918 anarchy swept over Ukraine.
The following text passages give some glimpses of how Bulgakov describes the Turbins’ attitude to hetman Skoropadsky and how he interprets the story of his election, his
policy and his flight from Kiev. In the last passage he depicts the anarchy that ruled in
Kiev, when the hetman had fled from the city.
In the first text passage it is said that Talberg (a fictitous person, a colonel who in
the novel is Elena Turbin's husband) had been active during the elections of the hetman
that had taken place in a circus.
A tall, crisp, military figure, Talberg stood in the arena counting the votes
at a show of hands. This was the end of the sharovary,45 there was to be a
Ukrainian state but a 'hetmanite' Ukraine – they were electing the 'Hetman
of All the Ukraine' (Glenny, p 31).46
The people in the city were said to have been laughing at hetman’s ”operetta state” but –
despite that – they hoped he would rule as long as possible.
The election had taken place with bewildering speed. Before most people
knew it had happened it was all over – and God bless the Hetman. What
did it matter anyway, just so long as there was meat and bread in the market and no shooting in the streets, and so long – above all – as the Bolsheviks were kept out and the common people were kept from looting.Well
[…] this was put into effect under the Hetman – indeed to a considerable
degree […] even though they laughed at the hetman's curious state […]
[they] sincerely blessed the Hetman, and said to themselves 'God grant
that it lasts for ever' (Glenny, pp 61 sq).47
45
Sharovary are very wide trousers, a traditional Ukranian dress.
Тальберг стоял на арене веселой, боевой колонной и вел счет рук- шароварам крышка, будет
Украина, но Украина "гетьманская", - выбирали "гетьмана всея Украины" (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.
1, p 197).
47
Избрание состоялось с ошеломляющей быстратой – и слава богу. Гетман воцарился - и
прекрасно. Лишь бы только на рынках было мясо и хлеб, а на улицах не было стрельбы, и чтобы
46
23
But when the hetman left Kiev for Germany, when the Directory's forces entered the
city, Talberg left as well. The Turbins and, particularly, Myshlaevsky were furious and
they accused the hetman for not having enrolled a strong White army in Kiev.
[Myshlaevsky] ended by heaping the most vulgar abuse on the Hetman of
All the Ukraine himself […] 'The Hetman? Mother-fucker!' Myshlaevsky
snarled (Glenny, p 23).48
Alexei is more elaborated in his critics of the hetman.
'As for your Hetman', Alexei Turbin was shouting, 'I'd string him up the
first of all! He's done nothing but insult us for the past six months. Who
was it who forbade us to form a loyalist Russian army in the Ukraine? The
Hetman. And now that things have gone from bad to worse, they've started
to form Russian army after all. The enemy's practically in sight and now –
now! – we have to rake up troops, form detachments, headquarters, – and
in conditions of total disorder! Christ, what lunacy!' […] 'Mobilisation –
huh’, Turbin continued bitterly. 'A pity you couldn't have seen what was
going on in the police stations yesterday. All the black marketers knew
about the mobilisation three days before the decree was published. How
d'you like that? And every one of them had a hernia or patch on his lung,
and any one of them who couldn't fake lung trouble simply vanished as if
he'd fallen through a hole in the ground. And that, my friends, is a very
bad sign. If the word's going round all the cafés even before mobilisation
is officially announced and every shirker has a chance to dodge it, then
things are really bad. Ah, the fool – if only he had allowed us to form units
manned by Russian officers back in April, we could have taken Moscow
by now. Don't you see? Here in the City alone he could have had a volunteer army of fifty thousand men – and what an army! An élite, none but
the very best, because all the officer-cadets, all the students and high
school boys and all the officers – and there are thousands of them in the
City – would have gladly joined up. Not only would we have chased Petlyura out of the Ukraine, but we would have reached Moscow by now and
swatted Trotsky like a fly. Now would have been the time to attack Moscow – it seems they're reduced to eating cats. And Hetman Skoropadsky,
the son of a bitch, could have saved Russia' (Glenny, pp 44sq).49
ради самого господа не было большевиков, и чтобы простой народ не грабил […] все это
осуществилось […] хоть и смеядись над странной гетманской страной […] гетмана славословили
искренне … и …"Дай бог, чтобы это продолжалось вечно" (ibid. p 223).
48
поручик Мышлаевский […] самого гетмана всея Украны обложил гнуснейшими площадными
словами. -Гетман, a? Твою мать! – рычал Мышлаевский… (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 191).
49
Я бы вашего гетмана, - кричал Турбин – повесил бы первым! Полгода он издевался над всеми
нами.Кто запретил формирование русской армии? Гетман.А теперь, когда ухватило кота поперек
живота, так начали формировать русскую армию? В двух шагах враг, а они дружины, штабы?
Смотрите, ой смотрите! ...
- Мобилизация,- ядовито продолжал Турбин,- жалко, что вы не видели, что делалось вчера в
участках. Все валютчики знали о мобилизации за три дня до приказа. Здорово? И у каждого
грыжа, у всех верхушка правого легкого, а у кого нет верхушки, - просто пропал … Ну а это,
братцы, признак грозный. Если уж в кофейнях шепчутся перед мобилизацией, и не один не идет –
24
In the next passage Bulgakov tells the ridiculous story about hetman Skoropadsky's
flight from Kiev. He is said to have changed from his hetman uniform into a German
one. A skilful doctor, who bandaged his head, helped to transform him into a wounded
German major. He was impossible to recognize as the hetman of Ukraine. A car with a
red cross took him out of the city on the way to Germany.
A […] medical officer […] bandaged the head of the newly-created German major […]. Then a noiseless German ambulance with Red Cross […]
drove away (Glenny, pp 114sq).50
In another passage it is described how Myshlaevsky is furious about the policy of the
hetman saying that he would like to kill him. He is mocking Shervinsky who was serving in hetman's office telling about troops from Senegal in Odessa that was to support
the hetman.
'Good day, sir', Myshlaevsky whispered maliciously in Ukrainian, stradding his legs wide […]. 'Why aren't you wearing epaulettes, sir? The imperial Russian flag is waving on Vladimirskaya Street…Two divisions of
Senegalese in the port of Odessa and Serbian billeting officers… Go to the
Ukraine, gentlemen, and raise your regiments… […]. Why, you mother…' […]. ‘I hope that his excellency, the commander-in chief, managed to
get away sooner. Just like his highness, the Hetman of the Ukraine…the
son of a bitch… […] perhaps you can tell me exactly where they are?’–
'Why do you want to know?’ – ‘I'll tell you why.' Myshlaevsky clenched
his right fist and smashed it into the palm of his left hand. 'If those excellencies and those highnesses fell into my hands I'd take one of them by the
left leg and the other by the right, turn them upside down and bang their
heads on the ground until I got sick of it’ (Glenny, pp 218sq).51
дело швах! О каналья, каналья! Да ведь если бы с апреля месяца он начал бы формирование
офицерских корпусов, мы бы взяли теперь Москву. Поймите, что здесь, в Городе он набрал бы
пятидесятитысячную армию, и какую армию! Отборную, лучшую, потому что все юнкера, все
студенты, гимназисты, офицеры, а их тысячи в Городе, все пришли бы с дорогой душой.Не только
Петлюры бы духу не было в Малороссии, но мы бы Троцкого прихлопнули в Москве как муху.
Самый момент: ведь там, говорят, кошек жрут. Он бы, сукин сын, Россию спас… (ibid. pp 208sq).
50
Он [врач] … забинтовал голову новорожденного германского майора […] германская бесшумная
мащина с красным крестом […] yщла… (ibid. pp 269sq).
51
- Здоровеньки булы, пане добродзию, сказал Мышлаевский ядовитым шепотом и расставил
ноги […] чoму ж це вы без погон? […]."На Владимирской развеваются русские флаги … Две
дивизии синегалов в одесском порту и сербские квартирьеры … Поезжайте, господа офицеры, на
Украину и формируйте части"…за ноги вашу мамашу!...[…] надеюсь, что его сиятельство,
главнокомандующий, успел уйти раньше … Равно как и его светлость, пан гетман…его мать […]
не можешь ли ты мне указать, где они находятся?
- Зачем тебе?
- Вот зачем. - Мышлаевский сложил правую руку в кулак и постучал ею по ладони левой. - Ежели
бы мне попалось это самое сиятельство и светлость я бы одного взял за левую ногу, а другого за
правую, перевернул бы и тюкал бы головой о мостовую до тех пор, пока мне это не надоело бы
(ibid. pp 357sq).
25
He speaks Ukranian in order to tease Shervinsky who – due to his position – protected
hetman Skoropadsky and his policy.
In the last passage, Bulgakov describes the chaotic situation during the final phase
of 1918. Nobody could understand what was going on in Kiev.
Indeed, no one in the City understood anything and it would probably be a
long time before they did. [In the City…] Germans […] and the Hetman
[…] was still there, as were excellency Prince Belorukov and General
Kartuzov, busy forming detachments for the defense of the Mother of
Russian Cities […]. The name 'Petlyura' still aroused fury in the City […
but] Petlyura's motley cavalry troops cracking their whips as his lancers
crossed from the left to the right flank at an easy gallop. If the cavalry is
only three miles out of town, people asked, what hope can there be for the
Hetman? And it's his blood they're out for… Perhaps the Germans will
back him up? But in that case why were the […] Germans […] doing
nothing [and] watched trainload after trainload of Petlyura's troops being
brought up to the assault? Perhaps an agreement has been made with Petlyura to let his troops occupy the City peacefully? But if so, why the hell
are the White officers' guns still shooting at Petlyura? The fact was that no
one in the City knew what was happening on that fourteenth of December
(Glenny, pp 128sq).52
In Bulgakov’s description of the attitudes to the hetman from the side of the Kiev population and from that of the refugees from Petrograd/St Petersburg and Moscow he emphasizes their ambivalence: they both find the hetman and his regime ridiculous and, at
the same time, they are happy for what he has achieved in Kiev in terms of law and order.
At the same time, Bulgakov describes the views among the landlords (who supported the hetman), when he tells that they are happy when they are thinking of how the
peasants will be treated by the Germans (who were robbing the peasants, and killed
them by machine-gun fire).
'Serve them right! And a bit more of that sort of treatment wouldn't do 'em
any harm either. I'd give it'em even harder. That'll teach them to have a
52
Да и никто ничего не понимал в Городе и в будущем, вероятно не скоро поймут […] в городе
немцы, […] гетман, […] его сиятельство князь Белоруков, […] генерал Картузов, формирующий
дружины для защиты матери городов русских […] в Городе густопогонно. В Городе ярость при
слове "Петлюра" […] а там […] конница и заходят с левого фланга на правый облегченною рысью
лихие гайдамаки. Если они свищут в пяти верстах, то спрашивается, на что надеется гетман? Ведь
по его душу свищут! Ох, свищут … Может быть, немцы за него заступятся? Но тогда почему […]
мимо них эшелон за эшелоном к Городу проходят петлюрины части? Может быть, с Петлюрой
соглашение, чтобы мирно впустить его в город? Но тогда какого черта белые офицерские пушки
стреляют в Петлюру?
Нет, никто не поймет, что происходило в Городе днем четырнадцатого декабря. (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 282).
26
revolution – didn't want their own masters, so now they can have a taste of
another (Glenny, p 62). 53
On the other hand, Bulgakov tells – as we have seen – how the Turbins are criticising
the hetman particularly for not having enrolled a strong army in Kiev to fight Petluyra
and the Bolsheviks.
Bulgakov's interpretation of the role of the hetman is fundamentally critical. He finds it
being an historical irony that the election of the hetman took place in a circus and adds
that future historians probably will emphasize the amusing aspects of his election. On
the other hand, Bulgakov was ready to admit that the hetman had, in fact, achieved a lot
during his short rule but he is critical of the hetman's protecting of the landowners, who
treated their peasants badly. He also seems to have regarded the hetman as too much
dependent on the support of the Germans.
Bulgakov’s main impression of the end of the Hetmanate was that nobody was able
to understand what was going on in Kiev on December 14, 1918 (when the hetman fled
to Germany). The situation in the city could, according to him, be characterised as total
chaos.
On top of that he claims that the hetman had the greatest responsibility for the fall
of Kiev and also for that of the Russian Empire. Bulgakov suggests a possible scenario
where the Whites could have negotiated with the hetman and saved Russia in this way
by forming a strong army of high quality consisting of 50 000 men. The hetman could
have moved with this army towards Moscow and defeated Trotsky. Bulgakov therefore
seems to share the view of the Turbins. Thus, Bulgakov blames the hetman for being
partly responsible for the dissolution of the Russian Empire. When doing this, he is using both moral judgments and mockery. In his negative comments of the separatism
intended by the hetman he is defending the idea of the traditional Russian Empire.
The use of the Ukrainian language was – for easily understandable reasons – important
for the nationalists.
Background: the view of a professional historian 54
The Ukrainian language is very similar to the Russian language but it is usually regarded as a separate language, not as a Russian dialect. Its vocabulary has been partly influenced by Polish. Tsar Alexander I had once forbidden the use of the Ukrainian language and Alexander II the printing of texts in Ukrainian. Only in 1905, Ukrainian was
formally accepted within the Russian empire as a separate language.
The Ukrainian movement for independence was based on the idea of a Ukrainian
nation. The use of one’s own language is a fundamental principle of such a movement.
During the short hetman regime, a great number of decisions were therefore taken to
53
Так им и надо! Так и надо, мало еще! Я бы их еще не так . Вот будут они помнить революцию.
Выучат их немцы своих не хотели, попробуют чужих! (ibid. p 224).
54
The source is Subtelny 1989, pp 221-242, pp 279-306 and pp 355-379, see particularly p 224, p 283, p
297 and p 357.
27
strengthen the use of the Ukrainian language, as was indicated above (p V). About 150
new gymnasia based on Ukrainian teaching were established all over Ukraine, some of
them located in rural areas. Several million textbooks in Ukrainian were prepared and
introduced in the elementary schools. Two new universities were founded teaching in
Ukrainian. One of them was situated in Kiev. In this city there were also a national archive and a national library (containing about one million volumes).
An illustrative text passage
In a text passage, Alexei Turbin is described as furious telling his friends with hatred
that the vile doctor Kuritsky can’t speak Russian any longer.
'[…] why, he can't even speak Ukrainian properly himself! Hell – the day
before yesterday I asked that bastard Kuritsky a question. Since last November, it seems, he's forgotten how to speak Russian. Changed his name,
too. To make it sound Ukrainian… Well, so I asked him – what's the
Ukrainian for "cat"? "Kit" he said. All right. I said, so what's the Ukrainian
for "kit" (=whale)? That finished him. He just frowned and said nothing.
Now he doesn't say good morning any longer'. Nikolka roared with laughter… (Glenny, pp 44sq). The word 'kit' (whale) can't exist in Ukrainian, as
there are no whales in Ukraine. But in Russia there is plenty of everything.
There are whales in the White Sea (my translation – these words are
passed over by Glenny).55
Here Bulgakov is not correct in his description of the differences of the two languages.
The Ukrainian word for “cat” is “кiт” and is pronounced in the same way as the Russian
word for “whale” кит. The Ukrainian word for “whale” is the same as the Russian one,
namely кит but is pronounced “kyt”, that does not mean anything in Russian. For the
Russian both Ukranian word for cat and whale sounds the same.
Among the main characters of the novel, only opportunists as Talberg and the less negatively pictured Shervinsky are said to accept and defend the use of the Ukrainian language. Alexei Turbin underlines the fact that the hetman himself does not speak Ukrainian. Nikolka Turbin is explicitly scornful about the use of Ukrainian when he takes as
an example that the same Ukrainian word signifies both cat and whale (in the episode
described above). Stressing the fact that there are both whales and a word for them in
Russia, he both underscore the greatness of Russia and claims that the Russian language
is richer than Ukrainian.
Those who speak Ukrainian as their mother tongue in The White Guard (mostly
Petlyura’s men) are often unable to speak it correctly, as they mix Russian with Ukrain55
[..,] - ведь он же сам не говорит на этом языке! А? Я позавчера спрашиваю этого каналью
доктора Курицкого, он изволите ли видеть, разучился говорить по-русски с ноября прошлого года.
Был Курицкий, а стал Курицький…Так вот спрашиваю как по-украински "кот"? Он отвечает:
"Кит". Спрашиваю: "А как кит? " А он остановился,вытаращил глаза и молчит. И теперь не
кланяется. Николка с треском захохотал и сказал:
- Слова "кит" у них не может быть, потому, что на Украине не водятся киты, а в России всего
много. В Белом море киты есть… (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 208sq).
28
ian (The White Guard, passim). In general, Bulgakov describes the use of Ukrainian in
mostly derogatory terms. His mockery is peaking, when he tells how Talberg is swotting up a Ukrainian grammar by Ignatii Perpillo, a strange language that Perpillo himself had great difficulties to use correctly (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 197sq).56
As a commentator Bulgakov does not mention (obviously on purpose) the ambitious
and successful programme on introducing Ukrainian language and Ukrainian cultural
institutions launched and implemented by the hetman. Evidently, he resists from analysing the intended role of the introduction of the official use of the Ukrainian language.
Bulgakov was obviously strongly negative to the use of Ukrainian for political purposes
as suggested by Milne who writes that Bulgakov’s "refusal to accept Ukrainian derives
logically from opposition to Ukrainian separatism, in which the language is a central
emotive symbol" (Milne 1990, p 79). She adds a number of arguments to confirm her
interpretation.
Bulgakov' attitude to the Ukrainian language is however more complex than that. He
never learned to love Ukrainian, though his godfather N.I. Petrov was a prominent
scholar of Ukrainian culture (Milne 1990, ibid.). For Bulgakov the most terrible language is a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. If one widens the perspective somewhat,
there is, in Bulgakov’s view, an ongoing struggle as well as between European culture
and the barbarians from the steppes as between the languages, Russian and Ukrainian
(Milne 1990, pp 77sq). Bulgakov lived in his own world, a world of books (cf. Zerkalov
2003, p 188). In his eyes the Ukrainian separatists' wish to make Ukrainian an official
language threatened this world so dear to him.
Bulgakov seems to be one with his own Russian language. European literature was
since long translated to Russian not to Ukrainian. He regarded Saltykov, SukhovoKobylin, Chekhov and Gogol as his teachers. They all wrote in Russian. Bulgakov’s
engagement did not include only Russian culture but also the entire European one. He
had grown up in a city of traditional European Culture (Milne 1990, p 85) and he was
ready to fight for its values. As all writers and scholars, except some very few, were
writing and translating foreign literature into Russian, it was through this language Bulgakov had got his European heritage. It is also important to keep in mind that he was
living in Kiev where the Ukrainian population was not the dominating majority (their
part of the city population was only 16.9 % in 1917). Most city inhabitants were at that
time of Russian origin (50.3 %), Ukrainian Jews (19%) or Poles (9.3%) (Milne 1990, p
79). Even the Polish in Kiev (for instance Studzinsky in The White Guard) spoke Russian. Thus, Bulgakov appears here to vindicate some traditional values in the field of
language, literature and fine arts.
At the same time, however, Bulgakov's attitude to the Ukrainian language seems to
have been inconsistent. In his short story Kiev Gorod he appears to be more tolerant to
it. Here he admits that one may use Ukrainian but it must be consequent and correct. It
is interesting to notice that he once bought a Ukrainian dictionary (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 154). He also is said to have talked with a friend in Ukrainian
(ibid. p 96). His sister writes that they talk Ukrainian (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 1988, p 47). Obviously he did not share the attitudes of his characters in the novel.
56
It is unclear to me whether Perpillo is a fictitious name or the name of a real grammatist.
29
Still, he is criticising the intitiative of replacing Russian by Ukrainian for nationalistic
reasons. This is a threat to his high esteem of Russian literature. His way of defending
his position in this conflict is partly built on humour. In his view, the separatists' promotion of the Ukrainian language challenged the traditional dominating role of the Russian
language in the literary life of Kiev.
The role of Petlyura
When Bulgakov describes the conflicts in and around Kiev in 1918 Petlyura is attributed a key role in the dramatic events.
Petlyura was in fact one of the main actors in the historical drama of 1918-1919. He had
served as a Minister of War in the Rada (the recently established Ukrainian Council) in
1917- 1918. During this period the Rada had signed an agreement with the Germans as
a consequence of the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Ukraine was to supply Germany with food,
while Germany was to keep order in Ukraine and fight the Bolsheviks. This agreement
worked for a while. But the Germans were not satisfied, as the Rada did not manage to
deliver the amount of food needed in Germany. Backed by the Germans hetman Skoropadsky therefore had taken the power from the relatively inexperienced Rada in April
1918.
Petlyura was put into prison but he was freed after some time. When Petlyura had
come out of the jail, the conflict between him and the hetman was intensified. Petlyura
was a national hero to most of the Ukrainians and they hoped he would give them independence from Russia and a better future. He gathered an army and created a military
force to count with.
Some relevant text passages
In three text passages Bulgakov shows how the streets of Kiev echoed of confusing rumours in the middle of December 1918 before the arrival of Petlyura. He also tells what
actually happened, when Petlyura's army had entered the city.
In the first passage the confusion of the town population is described. Nobody really knew what was going on. The Germans were evidently leaving Kiev. Some people
said that Petlyura had sent a delegation to Paris. Workers in Moscow were said to have
arrested Trotsky. Rumours told that General Denikin was forming a White army in the
East. An army from Senegal was also said to have arrived in Odessa. In this situation,
Petlyura’s well-organized and glorious troops were marching in while the crowd was
giving him and his soldiers a cheer.
Three Germans murdered yesterday. Oh God, the Germans are leaving –
have you heard? The workers have arrested Trotsky in Moscow!! […] Petlyura has sent an embassy to Paris […]. Black Senegalese in Odessa […].
57
The source is Subtelny 1989, pp 355-364.
30
Consul Enno. Odessa. General Denikin. […]. Petlyura. Petlyura. Petlyura.
Peturra… (Glenny, p 79).58
'There's going to be a campaign'
'Where to?'
'To Moscow'
Which Moscow?'
'The usual'
'They'll never make it.'
'What did you say? Say it again! Hey, lads, listen to what this Russian's
saying!'
'I didn't say anything!'
'Arrest him! Stop, thief!'
'Run through that gateway, Marusya, otherwise we'll never get through
this crowd. They say Petlyura's in the square. Let's go and see him.’
'You fool, Petlyura's in the cathedral!'
'Fool yourself. They say he's riding on a white hourse.'
'Hurrah for Petlyura! Hurrah for the Ukrainian People's Republic! (Glenny. p 251).59
Hurrah! Hurrah!' they shouted from the sidewalks […]. 'They said Petlyura's troops were just a rabble… Some rabble. Hurrah!' (Glenny, p
254).60
The two following passages describe the behaviour of Petlyura's men. After having entered the city of Kiev, the muzhiks were burning houses and began to persecute Jews.
58
Вчера убили двух немцев. Боже, немцы уходят, вы знаете?! Тр оцкого арестовали рабочие в
Москве!! […] Петлюра послал посольство в Париж […]. Черные сингалезы в Одессе […]. консул
Энно […] Генерал Деникин.[…] Петлюра. Пеnлюра. Пеnлюра/Пэтурра. (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1,
p 239).
59
- Поход буде
Куда поход?
На Москву.
На какую Москву?
На самую обыкновенную.
Руки коротки.
Як вы казали? Повторить, як вы казали? Хлопцы, слухайте,що вин казав?
Ничего я не говорил!
Держи,держи его вора, держи!!
Беги, Маруся, через те ворота, здесь не пройдет.
Петлюра, говорят, на площади.Петлюру смотреть.
Дура, Петлюра в соборе.
Сама ты дура. Он на белом коне,говорят, едет.
Слава Петлюри! Украинской Народной Республике слава!!! […] (Sobranie sochinenii, Vol. 1, p
385).
60
- Слава!Слава!- кричали с тротуаров.
…
Ото казалы банды…Вот тебе и банды. Ура! (ibid. p 388).
31
Here and there 'the red rooster crowed' as farms and hayricks burned, in
other places the purple sunset would reveal a Jewish innkeeper strung up
by his sexual organs (Glenny, p 77).61
Another Jew – this is told in the next text passage – Feldman, a Jewish supplier of the
White general Kartusov's army, had to leave his home to find a midwife for his wife,
though he was aware of the fact that it was dangerous to appear in the streets. But he
had no choice. Petlyura’s men stopped him immediately.
'I'm a peaceful citizen, sir. My wife's just going to have a baby. I have to
fetch the midwife.' ' The midwife, eh? Then why are you skulking along
like that? Eh? You filthy little yid?' 'Sir, I…' Like a snake the sergeant's
whip curled around his [Feldman's] fur collar and his neck […]. 'Identity
papers!' Feldman pulled out his wallet, opened it, took out the first piece
of paper that came to hand and then he shuddered as he suddenly remembered… Oh my God, what have I done? Why did he have to choose that
piece of paper? But how could he be expected to remember, when he has
just run out of doors, when his wife is in labor? Woe to Feldman! In a
flash Sergeant Galamba snached the document. Just a thin scrap of paper
with a rubber stamp on it, but it spelled death for Feldman […]. 'Oh God,
work a miracle! Eleven thousand roubles…Take it all. Only let me live!
Let me! Shma-isroël!’ […]. There was no miracle. At least Feldman was
lucky and died an easy death. Sergeant Galamba had no time to spare, so
he simply swung his sabre and took off Feldman's head at one blow
Bulgakov describes Petlyura as an unknown man whom the hetman had let out of the
prison. He was released from a cell number 666, a well-known number in the Apocalypse. In another of his texts, the short story Kiev Gorod, he writes about Semen Vasilyevich Petlyura, whom he portrays derogatorily as "a well-known book keeper" (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 308).
61
Запорхали легонькие красные петушки. Затем показался в багровом заходящем солнце
повешенный за половые органы шинкарь – еврей (ibid. p 237).
62
Я, панове, мирный житель. Жинка родит. Мне до бабки треба.
-До бабки? А чему ж це ты под стеной ховаешься? а? ж-жидюга?...
-Я, панове…
Нагайка змеей прошла по котиковому воротнику в по шее […]. - Посвидченя. Фельдман вытащил
бумажник с документами, развернул, взял первый листок и вдруг затрясся, тут только вспомнил
…ах, боже мой, боже мой! Что ж он наделал? Что вы, Яков Григорьевич, вытащили? Да разве
вспомнишь такую мелочь, выбегая из дому, когда из спальни жены раздается первый стон? О, горе
Фельдману![…] Всего-то тоненький листок с печатью, - а в этом листке Фельдмана смерть […].
Боже, сотвори чудо. Одиннадцать тысяч карбованцев. Все берите. Но только дайте жизнь! Дай!
Шмаисроэль!
Не дал.
Хорошо и то, что Фельдман умер легкой смертью. Некогда было сотнику Галаньбе. Поэтому он
просто отмахнул шашкой Фельдману по голове (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 286sq).
32
When the uproar led by Petlyura breaks out in the rural areas, Bulgakov tells how
Alexei Turbin and Myshlaevsky warn for the appearance of local goody muzhiks
(bogonosty dostoyevskiye), which have taken Petlyura’s part. When the Germans had
left Kiev and Petlyura and his men were approaching, there was a complete confusion in
the city leading to all kinds of rumours. Bulgakov is now listening to what people say
(see the first cited passages above). The White Guard was defending Kiev against
Bolbotun, Petlyura’s general, for a while but without any success.
When Petlyura finally had arrived in the city on December 14 with an army of
100.000 men, Bulgakov presents – despite his own antipathy – an impressive picture of
Petlyura’s army during a parade in Kiev. After Petlyura’s marching in, the people feared
that there would be pogroms. Bulgakov's description of the hideous tortures of Jews
carried out by Petlyura’s men (in the text passage above) seems to be based on what he
witnessed himself. One of the figures in the novel, Shpolyansky, characterizes Petlyura
explicitly as an anti-Semite.
The commentator Bulgakov finds it understandable that the muzhiks in the country have
accumulated much hate against the landlords backed by the hetman and that they therefore were ready to follow Petlyura. He claims that, if Petlyura had not taken the lead,
somebody else would have done it. Bulgakov seems therefore to express an understanding of the conditions of the rural population.
At the same time, it is difficult to avoid the impression that Bulgakov himself was
very critical about the role of Petlyura and his men during the battle of Kiev, particularly about their treatment of Jews. In the quoted text passages this was illustrated with
great aversion. Another episode told by Bulgakov in the novel shows an awful torture of
a Jew lasting for a long time:
Great was the year and terrible the year of Our Lord 1918, but the year
1919 was even more terrible […] two men were dragging a man in a torn
black overcoat, his face bruised and bloodstained. A cossack sergeant was
running alongside them and hitting the man over the head with a ramrod.
His head jerked at each blow, but the bloodstained man was past crying
out and only groanted. The ramrod cut hard and viciously into the tattered
coat and each time the man responded with a hoarse cry. 'Ah, you dirty
Yid!' the sergeant roared in fury. 'We're going to see you shot! I'll teach
you to skulk in the dark corners. I'll show you! What were you doing behind those piles of timber? Spy!…' […] Then the figure lying in the dark
puddle twitched convulsively a few times and lay still (Glenny, pp
294sq).63
63
- Велик был год и страшен год по рождестве Христовом 1918, но 1919 был его страшней […]
человека в разорванном и черном пальто с лицом синим и красным в потеках крови волокли по
снегу два хлопца, а пан куренный бежал с ним рядом и бил его шомполом по голове. Голова
моталась при каждом ударе, но окровавленный уже не вскикивал а только ухал, Тяжко и злостно
впивался шомпол в разодранное в клочья пальто и каждому удару отвечало сипло:
- Ух…а…
- А, жидовская морда! – иступленно кричал пан куренный, к штабулям его, на расстрел! Я тебе
покажу, як по темным углам ховаться. Я т- тебе покажу! Што ты робив за штапелями? шпион!..
[…] Потом в темной луже несколько раз дернулся лежаший в судороге и стих (Sobranie sochinenii,
vol. 1, p 421).
33
Also in some other texts, Bulgakov is criticising the horrors that the Jews were exposed
to. In the short story called Taynomu drugu he describes a torture of a Jew (Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 4, p 551). In another short story V noch na tretye chislo, Bulgakov depicts how the main hero comes back home after he has witnessed the murder of a Jew
and his hair had turned white after what he had seen (ibid.vol.1, p 513; p 520; p 522).
En early story written by Bulgakov, entitled Nalet describes another torture of a Jew
(ibid.vol.1, pp 459-461). In these texts Bulgakov demonstrates his own negative opinion
of anti-Semite actions.
Evidently, Bulgakov despised Petlyura and he criticized his doings. He blames him
both for his polical decisions and for his accepting of inhuman treatment of Jews. In the
first case, Petlyura is threatening the stability of the traditioneal Russian Empire, in the
second case he is responsible for not respecting basic human rights.
The role of the Germans is expressed by Bulgakov as one of the decisive factors in the
historical course of events in Kiev in 1918.
According to the Brest-Litovsk Treaty in March 1918, the Germans and the Austrians
were admitted and obliged to march into Ukraine with an army of 450 000. One of their
own interests was to secure the food supply for their soldiers and their town population.
For these reasons, they played an important role in the Ukrainian crisis for a while. As
was said above, the Germans had made a deal with the Central Rada about the food
supply. But they soon found out that the Rada lacked the capacity of collecting the food,
which was so desperately needed in Austrian and German cities. They were therefore
impatient with the young and inexperienced members of the Rada but were ready to
support the regime of the hetman.
In late 1918 the German forces suddenly left Ukraine. In the view of professional
historians, the decisive factor was of course that Germany had signed an armistice treaty
on November 11,1918 putting an end to the First World War. The treaty involved the
agreement that all occupied areas in the west and the east should be evacuated immediately and that the Brest-Litovsk Treaty was cancelled. Thus, when the Germans left Kiev in the middle of December 1918, it was in accordance with the armistice treaty.
The description of the historical events in a some text passages
In a number of text passages, Bulgakov illustrates the varying attitudes of the population in Kiev to the Germans. In the first text passage, one can imagine the hatred of the
muzhiks when they were exposed to the German executing of those who refused to supply them with food.
there came vague rumors […] that the Germans were robbing the peasants,
punishing them mercilessly and mowing them down by machine-gun fire
(Glenny, p 62).65
64
The main source of the background is Subtelny 1989, pp 355-379, particularly pp 353sq and p 359.
34
The upper class was, on the other hand, said to be thankful to the Germans, as their soldiers tried to control those muzhiks that dared to support the uproar (led by Petlyura).
Also Vasilisa (the neighbour of the Turbins) claims in another passage that the muzhiks
had got out of control due to the turbulent situation. In an exchange of words with a girl
from the countryside (of the name of Yevdokha) he says that the Germans will according to him teach the muzhiks how to behave.
'See here, Yevdokha […]. You've blossomed since this revolution. Look
out, or the Germans will teach you a lesson or two' […]. [Yevdokha answers in Ukrainian:] 'If they try and teach us a lesson we'll soon teach
them’ […] (Glenny, p 65).66
In a third and a forth passage Bulgakov tells how some German soldiers are murdered,
and therefore – during nighttime – the Germans have started patrolling the streets of
Kiev. But nothing could efface the ideas that had invaded the heads of the people. As a
consequence of these ideas a commander of the German army was murdered in the
middle of the day. The control got harder and the Germans began to ask for documents
letting only those with special permissions to pass.
Individual German soldiers […] began disappearing in the night. They
would vanish one night and the next day they would be found murdered.
So German patrols in their tin hats were sent around the City at night,
marching with lanterns to put an end to the outrages. But no amount of
lanternas could dissolve the murky thoughts brewing in people's heads.
(Glenny, p 79) 67 … in broad daylight […] no less a person that the commander-in-chief of the German forces in the Ukraine […] Field Marshal
Eichorn was shot dead! (Glenny, p 64).68
In another text passage Bulgakov describes how the Germans saluted the White general
Belorukov sitting in a car. Inside themselves the German soldiers did not care who they
met in the streets.
'Halt!' – 'Where to? Who? Why?'
'General Belorukov, commanding general' […]. The Germans helmets saluted. Secretely they didn't care whether it was General Belorukov, or Pet-
65
…доходили […] вести […] о том, что немцы грабят мужиков и безжалосмно карают их,
расстреливая из пулеметов… (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 224).
66
Побойся бога […]. Ведь это невозможно […]. вы распустились с этой революцией. Смотри,
выучат вас немцы […] Чи воны нас выучуть, чи мы их разучимо (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp
226sq).
67
Отдельные немецкие солдаты […] начали по ночам исчезать.Ночью они исчезали а днем выяснялось, что их убивали. Поэтому заходили по ночам немецкие патрули в цирюльных тазах. Они
ходили, и фонарики сияли – не безобразничать! Но никакие фонарики не могли рассеять той
мутной каши, которая заварилась в головах (ibid. p 239).
68
Среди бела дня […] убили не кого иного, как главнокомандующего германской армией на
Украине, фельдмаршала Эйхгорна, неприкосновенного в городе генерала (ibid. pp 225 sq).
35
lyura, or a Zulu chief – it was a lousy country anyway […] (Glenny, pp
111sq).69
In the novel it is described how the Germans are retreating from Kiev leaving the population of the city without any help. A train is said to be waiting in the outskirts of Kiev
to depart to Germany in the night. At the same time the Germans are unwilling to permit
the enrolling of a Russian army being afraid of it. Finally, the Germans are said to play
a double play. Alexei Turbin maintains that it is ridiculous that the Germans could think
of cooperating with Petlyura, as they called him a “bandit”.
Bulgakov also seems to regard the Germans as a number of inhuman but well organized and very well equipped robots. He describes – in a negative way – their methods
in collecting the food and of controlling the order within the city of Kiev. Bulgakov also
uses two of the characters of the novel to illustrate how the members of the Turbin
family react to the sudden retreat of the Germans from Kiev. Elena expresses her hope
that the Germans will be retaliated by God one day (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, p 320).
Alexei is spitting with rage when he talks of their (alleged) treachery (ibid. vol.1, p
187).
As a commentator Bulgakov evidently regards the German retreat from Ukraine as one
of the main reasons of the fall of Russia. When the Germans leave Kiev in the middle of
December, Bulgakov’s interpretation is that they are handing over to the Whites to fight
both Petlyura and the Red Army.
Dealing with the Germans’ retreat from Ukraine Bulgakov omits to mention the
background of their retreat namely the armistice of November 11, 1918. It is possible
that Bulgakov did not know (nor the inhabitants of Kiev) about the armistice treaty in
the First World War, when it took place but the author almost certainly must have
known about it when he finalised the book in the 1920ies.
In his description of what happens in the world around Ukraine he is particularly
selective and inexact. He does not mention the beginning dissolution of the Austrian
and Ottoman Empires or the complicated political situation after the First World War,
which changed the map of Eastern and Central Europe. Some of them who are fleeing
from Ukraine are for instance said by him to pass through a new land called “Poland”:
"not one of them, had the slightest idea of what was going on there or even what sort of
place this new country – Poland – was” (Glenny, p 58).70 His interest in the course of
historical events as presented in the novel is clearly confined to his own local milieu.
As well as many of his main characters, Bulgakov was evidently convinced that
both the Entente and Germany had left the White Guard to fight the Bolsheviks alone
69
– Halt!
Куда?Кто?Зачем?
[…] генерал от кавалерии Белоруков. […] И тазы немецкие козырнули. Правда в глубине души
им все равно, что командующий Белоруков что Петлюра, что предводитель залусов в этой
паршивой стране (ibid. p 267).
70
[…] ни один черт не знал,кстати гпворя, что в ней творится и что это за такая новая страна Польша […] (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 221).
36
and that they would pay for this in the future. His biased view in the novel that the
Germans' cooperation with the Ukrainian separatists was the decisive factor that provoked the fall of Russia is an expression if his personal judgement. If instead a strong
White Russian army had been formed in Ukraine, it would – according to Bulgakov –
have saved the Russian Empire from the Bolsheviks.
Thus, Bulgakov blames the Germans both for abandoning the people of Kiev in a
critical situation and for contributing to the fall of the Russian empire. In moral terms
they are accused for being both treacherous and ruthless. He regarded their behaviour as
the root of the catastrophy of the traditional Russian Empire and of much of the sufferings of the inhabitants of Kiev. This interpretation of the history reveals Bulgakov’s
somewhat narrow-minded perspective of the historical events around Kiev in 19181919. He is simplifying his description of the background of the collapse in order to
make his intension quiet clear.
Bulgakov's last hope in the crisis of his country was the White officers and soldiers. His
view of their behaviour belongs to the most central elements of the entire novel.
The Whites were left to defend Kiev against both Petlyura's and the Bolshevik's army as
a consequence of the course of events. The disappearance of the Germans and the disagreement between the hetman and Petlyura made the position of Kiev critical. The reason of the last circumstance was that the reaction of the Ukrainian nationalists to the
actions of the hetman was negative. The same day as the Act of Federation between
Ukraine and (a non-Communist) Russia was declared, the Directory led by Vynnychenko and Petlyura declared a rebellion against the hetman. In the late November 1918 they
encircled Kiev, permitting the Germans to leave the city.
The White generals tried to defend Kiev against Petlyura for a while. They were not
successful and Pelyura made his entry with his army into Kiev on the same day as the
Germans left, on December 14, 1918. After only some weeks, Kiev was again lost, this
time by Petlyura to the Bolsheviks (on February 5, 1919). Later, in August 1919, general Denikin, who led a White army in the Don area, succeeded in driving the Red out
of Kiev but he was in autumn 1919 defeated in his turn. The Bolsheviks became victorious in all Ukraine only in June 1920.
In a number of passages Bulgakov tells the story how the leading White officers left
Kiev when they understood that the case of the Whites was lost.
Colonel Shchetkin had been missing from his headquarters since early
morning […]. The field-telephone still squealed occasionally in
Shchetkin's room, but towards dawn it grew silent. At daybreak two of
Colonel Shchetkin 's aides vanished without trace. An hour later, after
searching furiously for something in his trunks and tearing certain papers
71
The source is Subtelny 1989, pp 355sqq.
37
into shreds, Shchetkin himself left the squalid little Rose of Stamboul, although no longer wearing his regulation greatcoat and shoulder straps. He
was dressed in a civilian fur coat and trilby hat […] (Glenny, pp 127 sq).72
The cadets […] knew nothing of this. This was a pity, for if they had
known […], [they might have] hanged him from the lamp-post […]. They
would have done well to do so, but they did not because they knew nothing and understood nothing (Glenny, p 128).73
So far about the flight of colonel Shchyotkin. In some other text passages, Bulgakov
describes the behaviour of other less courageous members of the White Guard.
A big shiny black car with four headlamps. No ordinary car, because it is
followed at a brisk canter by an escort of eight cavalrymen […] 'General
Belorukov, commanding general' […] behind the glass of the car's windows, a pale moustached face. Faint glimmer reflected from general's
shoulder-straps […] (Glenny, p 111).74
At one o'clock in the morning an armoured train like a gray toad …headed
boldly away towards the German frontier […]. In the third car back from
the locomotive, in a compartment upholstered in checkered calico, smiling
politely and ingratiatingly, Talberg sat opposite a German lieutenant and
spoke German… (Glenny, p 34).75
'He's a swine, and nothing more!' said Alexei Turbin to himself (with reference to Talberg) […] he's a wax dummy without the slightest conception
of decency! Whatever he says, he talks like a senseless fathead – and he's
graduate of the military academy, who are supposed to be the élite of Russia…’ (Glenny, p 54).76
The main theme of the reporter Bulgakov is here to emphasize the differences between
honest and loyal White officers and soldiers (represented by the Turbins, their friends
72
Полковника Щеткина уже с утра не было в штабе…[…] ночью у Щеткина изредка пела
телефонная птица, но к утру она затихла. А утром двое адъютантов полковника Щеткина
бесследно исчезли. Через час после этого и сам Щеткин порывшись зачем-то в ящиках с бумагами
и что-то порвав в клочья, вышел из заплеванной "Розы", но уже не в серой шинели с погонами, а в
штатском мохнатом пальто и в шляпе пирожком (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 281).
73
Ничего этого не знали юнкера […]. А жаль! Если бы знали, то может быть […] повесили бы
[Щеткина] на фонаре […].
Хорошо бы было это сделать, но они не сделали, потому что ничего не знали и не понимали (ibid. p
282).
74
И вот тяжелая черная лакированная машина, впереди четыре огня. Не простая машина, потому
что вслед за зеркальной кареткой скачет облегченной рысью конвой – восемь конных […]. В
стеклах кареты, в глубине, бледное усатое лицо. Неясный блеск на плечах генеральской шинели
[…] командующий Белоруков (ibid. p 267).
75
В час ночи […] серый как жаба бронепоезд […] смело никого решительно не боясь, ушел к
германской границе.[…] А в третьем от паровоза вагоне, в купе, крытом полосатыми чехлами,
вежливо в заискивающе улыбаясь, сидел Тальберг против германского лейтенанта и говорил понемецки (ibid. p 200).
76
- Мерзавец он. Больше ничего![…] О, чертова кукла, лишенная малейшего понятия о чести!
Все, что ни говорит, говорит, как беструнная балалайка, и это офицер русской военной академии.
Это лучшее, что должно было быть в России…(ibid. p 217).
38
and a number of anonymous cadets and soldiers) on the one hand and disloyal and
treacherous White officers on the other. His description has its focus on the shameful
behaviour of some characters of the novel. Bulgakov’s way of writing is sometimes
very emotional, e.g. when he depicts how Myshlaevsky tells about the soldiers freezing
without proper cloths. Loyal leaders as Nay-Turs either die in the battlefield or (like
Malyshev – on him see below) try to save his soliders and the cadets from a meaningless death.
Bulgakov had hardly any ambition of presenting an historical analysis of the role of the
White army in the crisis of 1918-1919. In his description of the treacherous White officers, he has a great difficulty in creating a distance to what was happening. The author
was himself a White officer and therefore personally involved in the historical process.77 His main comment is that Colonel Shchyotkin, General Belorukov and general
von Bussov have opened Ukraine for Trotsky and the Bolsheviks by saving their own
skin and leaving the battlefield. They did not want to fight and risk their lives.
Bulgakov’s own personal view of the historical course of events is therefore probably close to that of his main characters (particularly that of the Turbins). He refuses to
accept that his world has collapsed, partly due to the treacherous actions of some high
officers.
Bulgakov's basic idea is that one must fight to death for one’s fatherland. It was not
just an expression of a notion of honour common among officers. This idea can easily
be associated with the ancient Roman view of the role of virtus in history. According to
ancient Roman historians such as Sallust, Livy och Tacite, human life was dominated
and destined by two forces: Virtus and Fortuna. The last word refers to powers and
events that are out of human control. The concept of Virtus, on the other hand, refers to
man’s own power and ability, not only in terms of military bravery but also as prudence,
self-control and faithfulness (often called pietas by the Romans) in all kinds of relations
(to his city, to his country, to his religion and to his close relatives and friends).78
When Alexei Turbin criticizes Talberg, it is for his lack of virtus, as he is leaving
his city, his country and his wife in a very dishonest way. Talberg who had graduated
from a military academy, was, according to Bulgakov, supposed – as its other graduates
– to represent the best élite of the Russian society. They were supposed to live a life of
duty and justice. In the eyes of Bulgakov, the deserting leaders in the White Army had
lost their traditional moral quality.
Other members of the White Guard were on the other hand worth praise in the view
of Bulgakov. They did not run. They were still fighting in spite of a desperate situation.
To this group belonged the Turbins and their close friends. Other men worth of praise
were Malyshev who saved the lives of the young cadets and Nay-Turs who sacrificed
his own life in order to save the lives of others. Two women were also worth of praise,
Elena Turbin, who kept her presence of mind during the critical days of Kiev and Julia
Reis who risked her own life once saving Alexei Turbin from his persecutors.
The case of Nay-Turs illustrates most explicitly how a man of virtus should behave
when exposed to a critical situation. He fell after having fighting boldly. Milne has –
77
That Bulgakov in fact had been a White officer was not known to his third wife but to Stalin (Dnevnik.
Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 247 and p 192).
78
The Roman idea of virtus has been most clearly analysed in a study in Swedish by E.Wistrand, Politik
och litteratur i antikens Rom, Stockholm 1962, pp 119sqq. See also Milne 1990, pp 85sq.
39
with the assistance of C. Strachan of the Classics Department, University of Hull – observed (1990, pp 85sq with footnote 57) that his fate can be associated with the Roman
view of how men of virtus were regarded after their lives. When Nikolka leaves the
chapel after the funeral, Bulgakov writes
Nikolka […] went out of the chapel into the snow. All around, above the
countyard of the anatomical theatre, was the night, the snow, criss-crossed
stars and the white Milky Way (Glenny, p 277).79
The notion of "the Milky Way" is here the key word. Men of virtus were supposed by
the Romans to come to the Milky Way after their death, thus a kind of immortality deserved by only very few. Cicero articulated this idea in his De re publica.80
Again, we can see how Bulgakov – through his blaming and praising – is vindicating the traditional idea of virtus and its supposed remuneration. This idea has a very
long history originating from antiquity. The treacherous White officers were on the other hand partly responsible for the loss of his traditional world.
Conclusions of the analysis
Bulgakov's interpretation of history in the White Guard
When Bulgakov depicts the historical events during the end of 1918 and the beginning
of 1919, he has his focus on what was going on in Kiev and in Ukraine. He does not
relate this local story to the greater European setting including the consequences of the
First World War. Therefore he does not give a true and relevant historical background
of the events described in the novel. Neither the abdication of the tsar, nor the retreat of
the Germans or the weakness of the White Guard is explained by any historical circumstances.81 The behaviour of these and many other actors are instead explained in moral
terms that have a certain affinity with the way Roman historians explained victories and
defeats.
Another feature in Bulgakov’s way of writing is his concentration on individuals
and groups of people, not on social institutions and organisations or on socio-political
processes. He depicts for instance Petlyura as the abominable leader of a rural revolt,
not as a leader of a political party and a previous minister in the Ukrainian Government.
The Germans are portrayed as inhuman robots able to abandon the people of Kiev in a
treacherous way, not as an army belonging to a nation that just has been defeated and
obliged, according to the conditions of armistice, to leave all occupied areas in the west
and the east (including Ukraine). Thus, Bulgakov is on the whole very selective in giving the reader an idea of the complex background of the dramatic events in Kiev.
He is also describing several actors in the historical drama with an outspoken hatred. Trotsky is one of the main objects of his hatred. In Bulgakov’s political evaluation
79
"…Николка […] ушел из часовни на снег. Кругом, над двором анатомического театра, была
ночь, снег и звезды крестами, и белый млечный путь." (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 407).
80
Cicero, De re publica, VI, 16 (pp. 268sq). A man of virtus is supposed to come to hunc coetum eorum,
qui iam vixerunt et corpore laxati illum incolunt locum…quem vos…orbem lacteum nuncupatis. In English translation made by Clifteon Walker Keyes and cited by Milne: "that gathering of those who have
completed their earthly lives and been relieved of the body and who live in yonder place which…you on
earth… call the Milky (Way)" (Milne 1990, p 85).
81
Bulgakov once stated that he did not regard himself as an historian (see below p 100).
40
also hetman Skoropadsky received a very bad record. Collaborating with the Germans
he had not taken the chance of enrolling a White army in order to fight the Bolsheviks.
If he had done this, Russia might have been saved from the Red regime. Also Petlyura
had a very bad record in the personal view of Bulgakov. He associated him with the
number of Antichrist (666), when he tells about Petlyura's release from the prison. He
was then presented as a leader of a big army with many dubious elements in it, thieves,
robbers and rascals. He emphasizes the role of Petlyura as an anti-Semite who accepted
that his men were torturing Jews. The Germans were, according to Bulgakov, playing a
kind of a double play. The complicated character of the Shpolyansky is often an object
of Bulgakov’s odium (on the model of this semi-ficitious figure see footnote II). He is a
typical weathercook and a main traitor of both his country and his social class. He is
also a representative of a kind of modernist literature, which Bulgakov seems to have
detested.
Being mostly interested in the fate of the Russian empire, Bulgakov is mainly looking for those who were responsible for its fall. His characters in the novel are therefore
portrayed as criticizing the role of tsar Nicholas II, the role of hetman Skoropadsky, and
the role of Petlyura, the role of the Germans and the role of treacherous White officers.
When rendering the details of history Bulgakov is using mockery as one of his main
instruments, when he wants to give a negative picture of a person or a phenomenon. He
claims that the fact that the election of the hetman took place in a circus has something
to say about the man. The hetman’s entire regime is compared to an “operetta". The
hetman’s programme for the advancement of the Ukrainian language is an object of his
scorn. Bulgakov also takes the opportunity of sneering at the literary school of Russian
modernists represented by a literary club called in the novel “The Magnetic Triolet”.
As a commentator of what is told in the novel, Bulgakov deals with a number of
political issues. His main interest is in preserving the traditional Russian Empire. At the
same time, however, he himself does not evaluate the hetman’s idea of creating a
Ukrainian - (non-Bolshevik) Russian federation. When it comes to the question of his
constitutional view, he evidently regarded monarchy as the only possible regime in Russia. However, the tsarist regime was according to Bulgakov in need of reform. But what
kind of reforms he would have approved of is not clear, however, possibly some kind of
a constitutional monarchy. The regime of Kerensky was not an acceptable alternative to
him as he was a Socialist. The most awful alternative was after all the Bolshevik regime.
When Bulgakov analyses the situation of the rural Ukraine, he is well aware of the
fact how the landlords treated the muzhiks. As a commentator he underlines that the
country was in an urgent need of a social reform. The muzhiks had been badly treated
for centuries. Now they totally disapproved the hetman's reforms and claimed a radical
land reform:
and alas, it was only in November 1918, when the roar of gunfire was first
heard around the City, that the more intelligent people, including Vasilisa,
finally realised that the peasants hated that same Lord Hetman as though
he were a mad dog; and that in the peasants' minds the Hetman's so-called
'reform' was a swindle on behalf of the landlords and that what was needed
once and for all was the true reform for which the peasants themselves had
longed for centuries:
All land to the peasants.
Three hundred acres per man.
41
No more landlords.
A proper title-deed to those three hundred acres, on official paper with
the stamp of authority, granting them perpetual ownership that would
pass by inheritance from grandfather to father to son and so on.
No sharks from the City to come and demand grain. The grain's ours.
No one else can have it, and what we don't eat ourselves we’ll bury in
the ground.
The City to supply us with kerosene oil.
No Hetman – or anyone else – could or would carry out reforms like those
At the same time, Bulgakov holds that Russia was poor and dangerous country and
honor for a Russian was just a burden (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, p 217)
In his interpretation of contemporary history Bulgakov is not trying to apply some
systemic view as the Marxists, though he evidently was aware of the existence of such
theories (see what he says about that in The Heart of a dog below p VI). Instead he describes and interprets history in moral terms. In this respect he is very close to the ancient Roman writers of history such as Sallust, Livy and Tacite and as they he is looking
for the role of virtus in history. At school, Bulgakov had been studying Latin and classical Greek (see above p VII). The Roman historians constituted certainly a substantial
part of the curriculum. Bulgakov could not have evaded to be impressed by their way of
interpreting history. He was on the other hand, not writing history sine ira et studio
("without wrath and partiality") as Tacite pretended to do (but not succceded in doing).
Another feature of Bulgakov's way of rendering the historical course of events is
his way of blending facts and fiction as well as fictitious characters with historical ones.
He was an eyewitness of what happened in Kiev in 1918 and 1919 (he was in Kiev still
in July 1919 but in November he was already in Caucasus). But the fact that he had
been the witness of the critical period described in his novel is no proof for its truthfulness.
Now, Bulgakov is of course perfectly within his rights as an author of a novel to
choose whatever view of history he thinks is apt to promote his artistic ideas. It is easy
to agree that he has succeeded in giving a suggestive description of the events in and
around Kiev in late 1918 and early 1919. This leads us back to the four alternatives in
the hypothesis presented in the beginning of this chapter. I think, one has to choose between the two last alternatives: 3/ the author’s aim can also be to describe what the actors of the plot believed to be the historical truth or, finally, 4/ the author wants – for
some reason – give his/her very own personal view of the historical course of events.
I claim that Bulgakov’s mixture of facts and fiction serves primarily his purpose to
describe how people of his own social class and cultural background experienced what
happened during the critical days in Kiev. At the same time, however, this view is very
close to (if not always identical with) his personal view. He was himself convinced that
82
[…] yвы, увы! Только в ноябре восемнадцатого года, когда над Городом загудели пушки, догадались умные люди, а в том числн и Василиса, что ненавилели мужики этого пана гетмана как бешеную собаку… никакой этой панской сволочной реформы не нужно, а нужна та вечная, чаемая мужицкая реформа – Вся земля мужикам. – Каждому по сто десятин. – Чтобы никаких помешиков и
духу не было. – И чтобы на каждые эти сто десятин верная гербовая бумага с печатью во владение
вечное, наследственное, от деда к отцу, от отца к сыну, к внуку и так далее…такой реформы …
гетман произвести не мог. Да и никакой черт ее не произведет (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 230).
42
the traditional European culture would not survive in the area, if the Russian Empire
and the Russian language did not manage to keep its dominant position.
As was cited in the introduction of this chapter, Proffer takes the view that
White Guard represents […] an honest effort to portray recent history,
which is not to say that Bulgakov is not wrong or misleading about a
number of things… The view of history is the author’s view, honestly given” (Proffer 1984, p 154).
This judgement can now be questioned. Bulgakov wrote his novel with the intention of
explaining the historical events in and around Kiev in moral terms and of defending a
number of traditional ideas and values. This leads to the question of what ideas and values he was vindicating by his blaming and praising the actors of The White Guard.
Bulgakov’s vindication of traditional ideas and values in The White Guard
In his analysis of the collapse of the world he loved, Bulgakov blames – as we have
seen – a number of actors for their moral inferiority. To start from the top of society he
criticises the tsar – not for being an absolute ruler – but for having abdicated during the
deep crisis of the Russian Empire. In Kiev, Bulgakov puts the blame on the hetman for
not being able to think strategically in fighting the Bolsheviks by enrolling a strong army but also for abandoning the people of Kiev in a critical situation. He is also very
critical of Petlyura’s decision to throw open the door to the aggressive feelings of the
muzhiks. Bulgakov also puts the blame on the Germans for abandoning Kiev and opening the city for the troops of Petlyura.
Among private people whom Bulgakov definitely blames are the refugees from
Petrograd/St Petersburg and Moscow who turned Kiev, "…the most beautiful city in
Russia",83 into a depraved place with nightclubs, prostitutes and stinking rich. Kiev is
no longer what it was. He is also very negative to the appearance of the blasphemous
“The Magnetic Triolet”. Bulgakov is, however, most critical about a number of treacherous White officers who failed to perform their duties. When the situation in Kiev became threatening, they just left the field without caring about their soldiers or their fartherland.
Finally, Bulgakov has concentrated his blame on some of the fictitious characters of
the novel, for instance Talberg and Shpolyansky (modelled on a real person – see footnote II). Talberg had studied at the Russian military academy with great success. He had
married into the Turbin family. Despite his reputation as an officer and his marriage, he
left Kiev together with the Germans. He failed in his duties both as a soldier and as
Elena's husband. In the view of Bulgakov, Shpolyansky represented, however, the worst
type of traitors. He is not only extremely inconsequent in his political attitudes and disloyal during the defence of Kiev. He appears at last as supporting the Bolsheviks. One
of his previous friends and co-members in the circle of modernist poets, called ”The
Magnetic Triolet”, portrayed him – in words coloured by the Bible – as a precursor of
Antichrist. In the same context, Trotsky is identified with Antichrist (Sobranie Sochinenii, vol. 1. p 415).
83
In Putevye Zametki Skory No 7 Moskva - Odessa he wrote: самый красивый город в России - Kиев
(Sobranie Sochinenii, vol. 2, p 301).
43
Only courageous members of the White Guard were worth praise in the view of
Bulgakov. They did not run. They were still fighting in a desperate situation. To this
group belonged the Turbins and their close friends. Two officers were worth of particular praise (Malyshev and Nay-Turs). Two women were also worth of praise (Elena Turbin and Julia Reis).
Bulgakov’s view of how a human being should behave can, as we have seen, easily
be associated with the ancient Roman idea of virtus. According to the Roman historians,
this moral principle was the basis of the Roman Empire and its successes in peace and
war. Bulgakov seems to regard the same principle as the true basis of the Russian Empire. The concept of virtus was also associated with such virtues as temperance, judiciousness and piety. This last moral quality, pietas, covered a very broad spectrum of
relations. One of these relations was towards religion. Bulgakov regarded the Orthodox
Church as one of the main pillars of the Russian society (see above pp VIIIsqq). He also
described traditional Christian virtues in a positive way.
Another important relationship that could be judged in the light of virtus and pietas
is the relation to one's family. In the novel Bulgakov gives a very positive picture of the
importance of the traditional family environment. During the difficult days of Kiev, the
home of the Turbins is still a place of love, comfort and security. The entire novel represents, as Curtis maintains, homage to the traditional family (Curtis 1991, p 1).84
In the Roman setting the values of virtus and pietas were associated with once's
hometown (patria in Latin).85 In the case of Bulgakov he is producing a love song to the
city of Kiev.86 He describes his hometown as a city of beauty and culture. It is the
Mother of all Russian cities with its Orthodox cathedrals. His praise of his hometown
can also be linked to a long tradition. In the years of European humanism, it was fairly
common to dedicate a speech of praise to one's city. In Sweden for instance cities as
Stockholm became the object of praise of orators in the 17th century (In laudem Stockholmiae 1636). Another case was Norrköping (De Norcopia 1635).
To sum up these conclusions: In The White Guard Bulgakov vindicates a number of
values by means of his interpretation of history, the value of the family, the value of the
urban environment of Kiev, the value of the Orthodox Church (though he is far from
uncritical in his view of its appearance), the value of the Tsarist Monarchy and its
continued existence (certainly in need of reform), and, finally, the value of traditional
European culture, particularly when expressed in the Russian language. Above of this
he vindicated a number of traditional values, typical of intellectual upper middle-class
families.
Bulgakov also delineates a number of threats against all these traditional values.
The family life of the Turbins is threatened by war and unrest, the traditional urban
environment of Kiev is threatened not only by the war as such but particularly by the
rural revolt headed by Petlyura as well as by the immigration of refugees from
Petrograd/St Peterburg and Moscow, the Orthodox Church is threatened by the
approaching Communists, the Tsarist Monarchy is threatened by revolutionaries like the
Socialist Kerensky and later by the Communists, the permanence of the Russian Empire
84
In many of his letters he wrote: "Honour the home hearth" or in Russian "Славьте очаг"
(Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 1988, p 446).
85
In classical Latin patria mostly referred to once's native city (patria urbs), not to the entire Roman
Empire (imperium Romanum).
86
In the 1920ies Bulgakov wrote – living in Moscow – about his beloved home city in a short story,
entitled Kiev Gorod. Here he is hopeful that one day the city will become again what it was, the most
wonderful city of Russia (Sobranie sochinenii, vol 2, p 307).
44
is threatened by the Ukrainian independence movement and, finally, the European
traditional culture is threatened by many factors, not least the new Modernist poetry.
It should finally be stressed again that some of the ideas and values that Bulgakov
is vindicating in The White Guard are of an ancient Roman origin. This fact is underlined by the ending of the novel. The very last words of the novel are in Glenny’s translation:
The night flowed on. During its second half the whole arc of the sky, the
curtain that God had drawn across the world, was covered with stars. It
was as if a midnight mass was being celebrated in the measureless height
beyond that blue altar-screen […]. Above the bank of the Dnieper the
midnight cross of St Vladimir thrust itself above the sinful, bloodstained,
snowbound earth toward the grim, black sky […].
Everything passes away – suffering, pain, blood, hunger and pestilence.
The sword will pass away too, but the stars will still remain when the
shadows of our presence and our deeds have vanished from the earth.
There is no man who does not know that. Why, then, will we not turn our
eyes toward the stars? Why?87
As Milne has already observed (Milne 1990, p 86), Bulgakov is here referring to the
ancient Roman way of contrasting the smallness of the earth and the futility of human
endeavour to the eternal greatness of the universe. This idea was once articulated in a
classical passage in Cicero’s De re publica: Stellarum autem globi terrae magnitudinem
facile vincebant. Iam ipsa terra ita mihi parva visa est, ut me imperii nostri, quo quasi
punctum eius attingimus, paeniteret. In an English translation (made by Clifton Walker
Keyes and cited by Milne) these words run: ”The starry spheres were larger than the
earth; indeed the earth itself seemed to me so small that I was scornful of our empire
which covers only a single point, as it were, upon its surface”.88 When the speaker
(Scipio Africanus the Younger) had said this, the text continues: Quam cum magis intuerer, “Quaeso”, inquit Africanus, “quousque humi definxa tua mens erit? Or in the
interpretation cited by Milne: “As I gazed still more fixedly at the earth, Africanus said:
‘How long will yours thoughts be fixed on the lowly earth?’”.89 The last words are uttered by the speaker’s grandfather, Scipio Africanus the Elder, still more famous as a
courageous and successful Roman general than the speaker himself. With the last words
of his novel, ”Why, then, will we not turn our eyes toward the stars? Why?”, Bulgakov
takes – as Cicero did – the view that real reputation should be seen sub specie aeternita-
87
Последняя ночь расцвела. Во второй половине ее вся тяжелая синева, занавес бога, облекающий
мир, покрылась звездами Похоже было,что в неизмеримой высоте за этим синим пологом у царских
врат служили всенощную. […]. Над Днепром с грешной и окровавленной и снежной земли поднимался в черную, мрачную высь полночный крест Владимира. Издали казалось, что поперечная перекладина исчезла - слилась c вертикалью, и от этого крнст превратился в угрожающий острый
меч.
[…] Все пройдет. Страдания, муки, кровь, голод и мор, Меч исчезнет, а вот звезды останутся, когда
и тени наших тел и дел не останится на земле. Нет ни одного человека, который бы этого не знал.
Так почемуже мы не хотим обратить свой взгляд на них? Почему? (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, p 428).
88
Cicero, De re publica VI, 16 (pp 268sq).
89
Cicero, ibid. VI. 17 (pp 268sq).
45
tis and in the perpective of the entire universe, and not be associated with the contemporary conditions on the Earth..
Final conclusion
It is now evident that the intention of Bulgakov in The White Guard was to describe and
explain the events in and around Kiev in the late 1918 an early 1919 in a way that was
consistent with his own traditional worldview in opposition to the view taken by the
victorious Marxists.
He did this as a reporter and an eyewitness. He also did it as a commentator of the
historical events without paying regard to facts important to modern, professional historians. Instead he explains the outcome of the events as a result of the moral qualities of
the actors by focusing the role of individuals instead of social structures or political institutions.
In his view of history he is strongly influenced by the ancient Roman historians that
he had read in school. Their traditional explanation of historical occurrences was based
on the concepts of virtus and pietas. In accordance with this way of interpreting history
Bulgakov exposed the main actors of the events to praise or blame. He considers most
of the actors to be responsible for the destiny of Kiev but only quite few were seen by
him as provided with moral qualities such as virtus and pietas.
Virtus is not only equivalent to bravery but also closely associated with pietas in
relation to one's family, one's city, one's religion, one's country. In this contex he is describing a number of threats to ideas and values that he wanted to protect in a time of
political chaos. Therefore, he is blaming a number of individuals for their lack of moral
standard.
His way to achieve his goal is to express his own feelings and beliefs in his text,
combining factual and fictitious elements in his novel. Sometimes he describes, as we
have just seen, a key scene in a way that is clearly inspired by a certain text passage in
an ancient classical Roman text.
When reading the The White Guard nobody can escape from the impression that the
intention of the author was to appear as a vindicator of a lost world based on a number
of traditional ideas and originating from various periods of European history. In this
role he applied an interpretation of history that he had learnt from ancient Roman historiographs.
46
Chapter 3. Bulgakov's use of science fiction in The Fatal Eggs and The
Heart of a Dog
Introduction
When we turn to the next two texts to be analysed, the civil war is over and the new
Communist regime has established a firm control of the entire country. The situation for
an author who wanted to defend traditional ideas and values had completely changed.
He could no longer make his personal evaluation of a series of historical events in connection with the collapse of the tsarist Russia. Instead he chose to write two texts of
science fiction containing satirical descriptions of certain aspects of the newly established Communist society.
Both The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog are early works in Bulgakov's production. They encountered, however, different fates on their way to the public. The text of
The Fatal Eggs was included in the Diaboliad collection and published in May 1925.
The Heart of a Dog was never published in the USSR in Bulgakov's lifetime. The common theme of The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog is that one has to be careful with
experiments. The difference between the stories is that in The Heart of a Dog the professor manages to eliminate the risks of his discovery, while in The Fatal Eggs the discovery leads to a great disaster.
The aim of this chapter is to analyse how he is vindicating traditional ideas and values within the new political situation and how he is using satire in the form of science
fiction to do this. The main focus of the following analysis is to identify what kind of
traditional ideas and values he is vindicating (indirectly "praising"), when he is satirising (openly "blames") certain phenomena in his contemporary social and political environment. It is also of interest to observe how Bulgakov combines fictitious and factual
elements.
My methodological approach in this chapter is therefore simply to identify issues
that are the object of Bulgakov's s satirical blame. This is done also in order to get hold
of what values he is out to defend – indirectly – by means of his satire. The analysis of
the two texts will be carried out separately. In the concluding paragraphs the results
will, however, be presented together.
Analysis
The Fatal Eggs
The Fatal Eggs was written in 1924 and first published in Nedra in early 1925 and later
in the same year in a shortened version in the journal Krasnaya panorama (Red Panorama) (Proffer 1984, p 109; Milne 1990, p 49).90
The story begins in 1919 and comes to an end in 1928 (and is therefore partly a
fictitious story about the near future). In the beginning of the story, Moscow is first described as a cold and ruined city. When the story finishes in 1928, urban life is back to
normality as a consequence of an economic boom (i.e. the NEP period). A certain Professor Persikov is making experiments in his laboratory by means of the beams of a new
red ray. It accelerates the reproduction as well as the growth of living organisms. At the
90
Nedra was a literary almanac. Its sixth edition that included The Fatal Eggs appeared in February or
March 1925 (Milne 1990, p 41 and p 45).
47
same time, the amoebas that are used as test animals become extremely aggressive. In
this struggle only those survive that are most monstrous and cruel. Some frogs exposed
to the experiment become big as cats and the professor demonstrates them during a public lecture.
A journalist, who had heard about the scientific innovation, was interested in distributing the news about what he regarded as useful for the young Soviet society. He
was able to enter the professor's laboratory, after presenting himself as being from OGPU. Afterwards he spread the news of the discovery.91 A man named Rok, a chairman
of a state farm (sovkhos) in the neighbourhood of Smolensk, succeeded – supported by a
telephone call from Kremlin – in getting permission to test the ray in order to augment
the production of chickens at the farm.
Through a human error, however, the delivery of a box of hens' eggs for the sovkhos Red Ray was, however, mixed up with a box of reptiles' eggs, intended for the
professor's laboratory. These eggs were exposed to the red ray in the sovkhos and after
that mysterious things began to happen. Gigantic reptiles hatched out all over the Smolensk region. They were devastating everything and spread rapidly throughout the
USSR. The Red Army was mobilized and was trying to stop the catastrophe but in vain.
At last, a sudden attack of frost in the month of August killed the reptiles and saved the
country from a complete disaster. The dangerous ray was destroyed and disappeared
forever together with the professor who was killed by a furious mob.92
Thus, The Fatal Eggs is a sharp satire about the risks of incompetent use of the results of natural science. Bulgakov is here inspired by a story written by H.G.Wells, The
Food of the Gods.93 Wells is explicitly referred to in the text (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.
2, p 56).94 One of the similarities between the two stories is the use of frogs as test animals. Wells predicted a future, where children after have been fed by special food become supernatural. Bulgakov is thus using elements of science fiction but science fiction is for him rather an instrument for examining the present situation in the Soviet
Union than any prediction of the future (cf. Proffer 1984, p 109). The main targets of
Bulgakov's satire are two Soviet citizens, a chairman of a state sovkhos and a journalist
of an OGPU magazine.
The first item that he satirizes is the improper use of (scientific) knowledge (a criticism also present in other works of Bulgakov). Only professionals with proper training
should, according to him, be responsible for scientific activities. Amateurs or ignorant
people should never do it. If they do, the consequences are far from those aimed at.
Here, Bulgakov’s view reminds of ideas expressed already by Plato (for instance in his
dialogue Kriton).95
In accordance with this idea, professor Persikov wants to keep his discovery in secrete until further and refuses to accept any experiments with eggs before he has tested
it in his laboratory, but he fails. A telephone call from Kremlin makes the professor
agree on permitting the ray to be used in a state farm for an increased production of
91
Soviet journalists of the time seemed to share the naive belief that great scientific advances would
transform the human condition thoroughly, and, indeed, that such an advance had just taken place in the
laboratory of professor Persikov (cf. Proffer 1984, p 109).
92
This story was in fact retold as being a true story by a newspaper in the U.S.A. according to Mayakovsky who returned from a trip in America in 1925 (Proffer 1984, p 116).
93
In a story Zolotistyi Gorod one chapter is called "The Food of the Gods" (Pishcha Bogov). There it is
said that in a sovkhos one has bred an enormously big pig (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 339).
94
Wells was a popular author in the USSR in the 1920s (Milne 1990, p 47 with footnote 18).
95
Platon, Kriton, VII, passim (pp 162sqq).
48
chickens. The disaster is thus caused by the intervention of the political power and by
human ignorance (represented by the journalist and the leader of the farm) in combination.
Another object of Bulgakov's satirizing is people’s improper attitude to Nature.
Attempts to influence the mechanisms of Nature may lead to a catastrophe. Here, Bulgakov vindicates an idea and a value that he touches upon also in The Heart of a Dog,
namely the necessity of human respect of Nature. Evidently, the narrator takes the side
of the spiritless creatures. A frog is described as protesting against being exposed to
vivisection. In her dead eyes one could read, "you are bastards" (svolochi vy).96 When
the awful experiment in the sovkhos in the Smolensk area is running towards catastrophe, the birds disappear and the dogs are howling. Finally, it is Nature itself that rescues
the Soviet society through a sudden attack of frost in the month of August, when the
military forces have failed to stop the invasion of the reptiles.
Here Bulgakov might seem to be in harmony more or less with modern ecological
views but he is rather reproducing an ancient idea. Nature has, according to Bulgakov,
to be respected as something that cannot be improved but that is already perfect. This is
a frequent idea in ancient Greek philosophy. Man cannot transcend the laws of Nature
and must respect Nature of which he/she is a part. One of the roles of ancient philosophy was therefore to help people to live according to Nature.
A third object of Bulgakov's satirizing is the tendency towards Soviet megalomania.
In the USSR there was a political ambition to compete both with the economic results of
the old tsarist regime and with those of the Western countries. In his description of the
disaster in The Fatal Eggs Bulgakov seems to refer to the idea of hybris and nemesis in
Greek philosophy, often illustrated in Greek myth and drama. If man is transgressing
the boundaries of Nature in his hybris, he will be exposed to the consequences of nemesis meaning the revenge of Nature (an idea illustrated by the Greek myth of the fate of
Ikarus). This is exactly what happens in The Fatal Eggs. This time, however, Nature
was benevolent and appeared to be the saviour of man and society. Man should therefore strive to reach what the Greeks called sophrosyne (meaning "the ability of being
considerate, moderate and reflecting").
But is it plausible that Bulgakov here reproduces such an ancient idea? I think it is.
It is well known that he had got a profound classical education at school (see above p
VII). It is also well known that Bulgakov was particularly interested in the dramas of
Sophokles (Milne 1990, p 85). This ancient writer is famous for emphasizing – among
other things – the importance of sophrosyne in human life.
It should again be underlined that Bulgakov did not see historical development as a
question of an ongoing Progression (predictable by social scientists) as the Marxists did.
According to him there is instead something that is constant over time, certain values
that man must respect and protect even when society is in a state of change. The Soviet
ambition of changing Nature (later illustrated by full scale projects about turning the big
rivers in the opposite direction, about growing maize in Central Asia etc) was, according to Bulgakov, a challenge that Nature does not admit. When he mentions that the
journalist in the story also suggests that one may use the ray for making Soviet cattle
breeding more efficient he also criticizes ideas reminding of those promoted by Lysenko who some years later started his pseudoscientific experiments that were highly estimated by Soviet leaders but not so by his scientific colleagues in Western countries.
96
Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 50.
49
So far we have found that Bulgakov – in The Fatal Eggs – vindicates three traditional values based on ancient ideas. Summing up these results it is motivated to claim
that the story of The Fatal Eggs can be read as an early warning that Bulgakov wanted
to be heard in Moscow where he had decided to live and work. The text was written
three years after his arrival to the capital 1921. Things were changing rapidly and Moscow was emerging from the ruins of Military Communism to an attractive metropolis:
"Moscow, a huge city, the only real one, an entire country, only here one can live" (my
translation).97
The Fatal Eggs can therefore also be read as a love song to Moscow where he expresses his own high estimate of urban life in general. The text contains a positive (but
not uncritical) view of a vibrant Moscow in the near future (in 1928). As in Zoyka's
Apartment (see chapter 5), the author here reveals his own enchantment of a life in a
metropolis.
Bulgakov wrote his story in the same year as Lenin died. The process towards a
"New World and a new Man" was initiated at this time. Intention was to show for the
West that the USSR was bigger and better in everything. An absurd ambition of a
backward country to start a competition with the West; the dark sides of this development began to be evident for intellectuals of Bulgakov's kind already two years after
1917.98 That explains why The Fatal Eggs were both praised and blamed when it was
published in 1925. In a similar way as professor Persikov and his assistant were constructing a complicated camera to study the effects of the ray, Bulgakov was studying
Soviet society reflecting it in a number of literary mirrors. The result is a picture of a
pervert society, where it is impossible (even for wise professors) to resist ongoing madness.
As in his other works (studied in this thesis) Bulgakov mixes elements of facts and
elements of fiction in The Fatal Eggs. This time, however, he does not add fictitious
elements to factual events (as in The White Guard) but rather inserts factual elements of
his contemporary environment into a science fiction text.
The results of the analyses of The Fatal Eggs are thus that Bulgakov here vindicates
four traditional values: 1/ respect for human competence and expertise 2/ respect for the
limits of Nature and 3/ the value of being considerate, moderate and reflecting and, finally, 4/ a high estimate of urban life, particularly that of a big metropolis. The first
three of these values are based on ideas well known since classical antiquity.
The Heart of a Dog
This story was written in early 1925. It was published for the first time in 1968 but outside of the Soviet Union (in Germany), in the USSR only in 1987, during the "Glasnost"
period. In 1987 it was also transformed into a play and staged several times during some
of the last years of the existence of the Soviet Union. Also this story is influenced by
H.G. Wells. The source of inspiration is his Island of Dr Moreau (Milne 1990, pp 60
sq).
The story is about an experiment of creating a man by providing a dog with some
essential parts of a human being taken from a dead criminal who had managed to evade
97
Москва , город громадный, город единственный, государство, в нем только и можно жить (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 295).
98
See Bulgakov's article from 1919 "Gryadushchie Perspektivy" ("Prospects for the Future") in Volshebny Fonar', p 718 (in Russian) and in Curtis 1991, p 16 (in English). The Russian text is reproduced with
the English translation in Appendix 2.
50
punishment due to his proletarian origin. A certain professor Preobrazhensky transplants
the pituitary gland and testicles from the dead man into a dog, called Sharik. The dog
turns into a man called Sharikov who shows the character of the human donor in combination with residual features of a dog.
The famous surgeon who lives in a comfortable apartment is thereafter obliged to
share it with his own creation that appears to be an alcoholic and criminal man.
Sharikov becomes friend of the house committee who wants to deprive the professor of
a part of his living space, i.e. to let other people live in his apartment.99 The contemporary background of this is of course the critical housing situation in Moscow in the middle of the 1920ies but also the regime’s wish of increased control of its citizens.100 The
professor manages to keep his apartment intact, as he gets protection from one of his
influential patients. When, however, Sharikov begins to behave in a menacing way, the
situation becomes unbearable and the professor and his assistant therefore transform
him into an ordinary dog again.
As a medical doctor Bulgakov was well acquainted with the world he describes in
The Heart of a Dog. The surgery that the professor and his assistant carried out is described, as it appears, professionally. At the same time, he is commenting the events
from the perspective of the patient through the thoughts of the dog. The professor is
described as having a strong position as a specialist on rejuvenation. A number of scientific publications on rejuvenation appeared in the twenties (Proffer 1984, p 124). The
presentation of the professor's practice is therefore based on a factual background. But
the development of the story is of course pure fiction.
Some of his very influential patients, who are treated in the professor's clinic in
order to become younger, are interested in protecting him. As a consequence, the professor is able to say what he really is thinking. It is therefore easy to believe that the
professor is of the same opinion as Bulgakov himself. (cf. Milne 1990, p 62). Also the
dog's monologue is openhearted and gives a true and realistic picture of life in the contemporary Moscow. These circumstances made it possible for Bulgakov to express his
critical views on some of the consequences of the Bolshevik revolution. Bulgakov's
description of the creation and behaviour of Sharikov, who is accepted by the representatives of the new regime, can first of all be interpreted as a satirical picture of the Soviet
Marxists' idea about the appearance of "a new man". His criminal background is no obstacle for his acceptance by the house committee.101 In the view if the professor, however, Sharikov's manners have to be completely changed, if he is to be accepted in human
society. "You belong to the lowest stage of development […]. You are still in the formative stage. You are intellectually weak. All your actions are purely bestial" (translated
by Glenny, pp 107sq).102
99
This phenomenon was called "uplotnenie" (increasing the occupancy of the house).
Bulgakov wrote in his diary on September 18, 1923: Пока у меня нет квартиры, я не человек, а
лишь полчеловека (Lesskis & Atarova, 2007, p 198). “As long as I don’t have an apartment, I am not a
human being but only a half human being” (my translation,). He also said once: "Я не то что МХАТу, я
дьяволу готов продаться за квартиру". "I am ready to sell myself not only to MKhAT but to Devil himself for an apartment" (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 225, my translation; see also ibid. p
51).
101
The Cheka-OGPU of the twenties, the secret police organisations, was not unfamiliar with hiring
personnel with criminal records (Proffer 1984, p 133).
102
Вы стоите на самой низшей ступени развития![…] вы еще только формирующееся,слабое в
умственном отношение существо, все ваши поступки чисто звериные […] (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.
2, p 184).
100
51
This is the first instance of Bulgakov's vindication of a traditional value in this text:
his humanist view of man.103 According to Bulgakov, man is always the same. He expressed this view very clearly later in The Master and Margarita, where Woland says in
Glenny's translation:
'The Muscovites have changed considerably ... outwardly, I mean ... as,
too, has the city itself ... Not just the clothes, but now they have all these
...what d'you call 'em ... tramways, cars ...’ ...'the much more important
question: have the Muscovites changed inwardly? ...’ (Glenny, pp
132sq).104
’They 're people like any others. They're over-fond of money, but then
they always were ... Humankind loves money, no matter if it's made of
leather, paper, bronze or gold. They 're thoughtless, of course ... but then
they sometimes feel compassion too ... they're ordinary people, in fact they
remind me very much of their predecessors, except that the housing shortage has soured them ...’ (Glenny, p 137).105
Bulgakov's silent question in The Heart of a Dog runs: where is this new man to be
found, if everybody is as greedy as those of the old regime? In this so-called new world
anything seems to be allowed as long as it promotes the regime and its ideology. By
following this rule people can increase their well-being.
In The Heart of a Dog Bulgakov openly criticises the Bolshevik terror. The professor says: "People who think you can use terror are quite wrong. No, terror's useless,
whatever its color - white, red or even brown! Terror completely paralyzes the nervous
system" (Glenny, p 20).106 This criticism can also be associated with his general humanist view of man. In the world of Bolshevik terror the professor lived in a kind of exile;
he told his assistant not to read newspapers. He had noticed that those of his patients,
who did not read newspapers felt very well, while those people who had read "Pravda",
felt badly and were loosing weight.
A second traditional value vindicated by Bulgakov in The Heart of a Dog is the
value of scientific knowledge and deep competence. The professor and his doings are
clearly representing this value. At the same time, everybody must, according to him,
stick to his/her own business and do it as well as possible, an idea deeply rooted in European tradition (and – as we saw in the analysis of The Fatal Eggs – promoted already
by Plato). People should not try to deal with what they are not trained for.
This view can easily be applied to Bulgakov's critical satire of how ignorant people
had, according to him, misunderstood the theories of Marx. Professor Preobrazhensky
103
The word 'humanist' is here defined as "concerned with ethical standards of man and with human
dignity".
104
Горажане сильно изменились, внешне, я говорю, как и сам город, впрочем. О костюмах нечего
уж и говорить, но появились эти как их трамваи, автомобили...более важный вопрос изменились ли
эти горожане внутренне? ... (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 119).
105
- они - люди как люди. Любят леньги, но ведь это всегда было...Человечество любит деньги, из
чего бы те ни были сделаны, из кожи ли, из бумаги ли, из бронзы или золота. Ну, легкомысленны... ну, что ж,,, и милосердие иногда стучится в их сердца...обыкновенные люди... в общем,
напоминают прежних...квартирный вопрос только испортил их (ibid. p 123).
106
Они напрасно думают, что террор им поможет. Нет - c, нет- c не поможет, какой бы он не был:
белый.красный или даже коричневый! Террор совершенно парализует нервную систему (Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 2, p 129).
52
first ironically asks: "Did Marx forbid people to keep their staircases carpeted?"
(Glenny p, 42).107 Also mentioning of the Marxist theoretician Kautsky in the text is
worth considering. The professor does not believe that Sharikov can understand a book
containing the correspondence between Engels and Kautsky, a book given to Sharikov
by the chairman of the house management committee. He therefore asks his maid to
burn the book. Here Bulgakov expresses his repudiation of the ignorant readers of
Marxist literature.
–
–
–
–
–
–
What have you been reading? ...
That guy…what's his name… Engel's correspondence with…hell,
what d'you call him…oh - Kautsky….
What comment can you make on what you've read? …
... I don't agree
With whom? - Engels or Kautsky?
With neither of'em…(Glenny, pp105sq).108
Lenin had accepted Kautsky as an interpreter of Marx theory. His works were therefore
often read and quoted in the USSR as a useful introduction to socialism. Bulgakov's
essential point is, however, to remind the competent reader that Kautsky claimed that –
according to the theory of Marx – revolution could only be initiated in a thoroughly
industrialised country. Bulgakov seems to have shared the view of Kautsky on the Russian revolution, maintaining that a country that was 200 years behind Western Europe in
socioeconomic development could not manage to carry out any kind of a Marxist revolution.
The professor therefore disapproves the Bolsheviks' frequent pursuit of the socalled "contrarevolutionaries". There can't be any counter-revolution as there was no
revolution according to him but just a simple state of disorganisation. When his assistant suggests that what the professor utters could be seen as a kind of counterrevolutionary thinking, he replies that it is pure nonsense:
Nothing counterrevolutionary in all that. Incidentlally, that's a word I
simply can't tolerate. What the devil is it supposed to mean, anyway?
Nobody knows. That's why I say there's nothing counterrevolutionary in
what I say. It's full of sound sense and a lifetime of experience" (Glenny, p
45).109
The proper use of Nature is also a theme in The Heart of a Dog as well as in The Fatal
Eggs. In a discussion between the professor and his assistant after it has become clear
that the experiment has led to the creation of an abominable man (Sharikov), the professor utters:
107
Разве Карл Маркс запрещает держать на леснице ковры? (ibid. p 144).
Что же вы читаете?[…]. – Эту ... Как ее ... переписку Энгельса с этим ... как его – дьявола – c
Каутским […]. – Позвольте узнать, что вы можете сказать по поводу прочитанного? […]. Да не
согласен я. – С кем? С Энгельсом или Каутским? – С обоими ... (ibid. p 183).
109
[…] никакой контрареволюции. Кстати вот еще слово, которое я совершенно не выношу. Абсолютно неизвестно, что под ним скрывается! Черт его знает! Так я и говорю: никакой этой самой
контрреволюции в моих словах нет. В них здравый смысл и жизненная опытность… (ibid. p 146).
108
53
This, Doctor, is what happens when a researcher, instead of keeping in
step with nature, tries to force the pace and lift the veil. Result - Sharikov.
We have made our bed and now we must lie in it" Supposing the brain had
been Spinoza's Philip Philipovich? " Yes" bellowed Philip
Philipovich."Yes! Provided the wretched dog didn't die under the knife and you saw how tricky the operation was. In short, I, Philip
Preobrazhensky, would perform the most difficult feat of my whole career
by transplanting Spinoza's, or anyone else's pituitary and turning a dog
into a highly intelligent being. But what in heaven's name for? That's the
point. Will you kindly tell me why one has to manufacture artificial
Spinozas when some peasant woman may produce a real one any day of
the week? (Glenny, p 122).110
Bulgakov has two points in this passage. The first one is that one should not violate
Nature, as it leads to unpredictable results. His second point is that not even a successful
result legitimates the manipulation of Nature.
The grotesque housing situation in contemporary Moscow is another theme often
referred to in the text. This is an example of a phenomenon that had nothing to do with
ideology, according to Bulgakov. Here, again he is defending the traditional middleclass value of a decent life in a private home, an idea that also has an ancient origin.111
When the house management committee expresses its menaces to deprive the professor
of some of his rooms, he answers by indicating that he will leave the Soviet Union for
Europe and close his practice. When a powerful man, interested in his treatments, protects the professor and his clinic, the house management committee gives up under protest. This protest is met by the professor's irony.
The attitude of the professor has its background in the fact that he and his assistant
are described – in the eyes of the Bolsheviks – as having a "bourgeois", i.e. an unacceptable, social background (sons of a plain-clothes policeman and dean of a cathedral).
One of the representatives of the house committee claims that if the professor were not a
scientist famous in Europe and if he had not got protection, he should have been arrested. On the professor's inquiry for what reason the representative answers that the reason
is that he hates the proletariat. The professor agrees. He has no reason to like the proletariat. His way of life is based on traditional upper middle-class values: he is very well
dressed, he often visits the opera house in his free time, his meals are served by a maid
at an elegantly laid dinner table.
The professor's irony in his interview with the house management committee is
revealing Bulgakov's own view of the Bolshevik regime. The author lets the professor
say that he has no reason to like the proletariat and that he refuses to have anything to
do with them. He derides the common support of the October revolution "Very well.
How does the House Committee propose to stand up for your revolutionary rights? –
110
Вот, доктор, что получается, когла исследователь вместо того чтобы идти паралледьно и ощупью с природой, форcирует вопрос...Можно привить гипофиз Спинозы... и соорудить из собаки
чрезвычайно высоко стоящего.Но на какого дьявола? – спрашивается.Объясните мне пожалуйста,
зачем нужно искуственно фабриковать Спиноз, когда любая баба может его родить ... (Sobranie
sochinenii, vol. 2, pp 193sqq).
111
In the Roman world, the threshold of a house signified the border between official life (res publica)
and private life (res privata).
54
Easy. Put me on the register" (Glenny, p 87).112 He is only scornful, when the
representative of the house committee is claiming to edict an official document that
Sharikov exists and must be registered, particularly with regard to military service
"Supposing war suddenly breaks out with the imperialist agressors?" ( Glenny, p 90).113
The results of the analysis of The Heart of a Dog are thus that Bulgakov here vindicates four values: 1/ a traditional humanist view of man 2/ respect for human competence and expertise 3/ respect for the limits of Nature and 4/ a traditional value of the
comfortable life in a private home. The last three of these values are based on ideas well
known since classical antiquity.
Conclusions
Traditional ideas and values vindicated in the two texts
Criticising contemporary life in the USSR Bulgakov indirectly vindicates a number of
traditional values in the two texts. In both The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog he
defends the value of true scientific knowledge and deep competence that he regards as
of crucial importance for both Man and society. He is not only defending the value of
natural science (with which he was particularly acquainted as a medical doctor) but he
also discusses the use of social science in terms of Marxist theories. Irresponsible applications of natural science as well as ideological misinterpretation of grand social theories lead to disaster and terror respectively.
Besides his wish to defend true scientific knowledge Bulgakov is also extremely
critical about Soviet journalists. In The Fatal Eggs professor Persikov tells a journalist
"[…] you are writing something disgusting”.114 Professor Preobrazhensky in The Heart
of a Dog does not read Soviet newspapers and recommends his assistant and his patients
not to do it for health reasons.
Another important value that Bulgakov vindicates but only in The Fatal Eggs is
what the ancient Greeks called sophrosyne. It means that man should avoid actions of
hybris in order not to be exposed to nemesis. The story about how Rok, a manager of a
sovkhoz, makes – with the help of "Kremlin" contacts – professor Persikov permit him
to use his invention and how his experiment results in a fatal outcome is an illustrative
example of human hybris and the following nemesis. When the journalist presents the
idea that the ray method could be applied on breeding cattle in the Soviet Union, he is
very close to inspire an act of megalomania. In both cases the representatives of the new
regime demonstrate a lack of sophrosyne.
Very close to this idea is Bulgakov's view that one must respect Nature and its laws
and never try to manipulate them. All attempts to do so lead to catastrophes that only
Nature itself may take care of. In The Fatal Eggs it is a sudden frost in August that kills
the monstrous reptiles. In The Heart of a Dog the professor's view is that Nature should
never be manipulated, even if the results are positive. Here Bulgakov has evidently reacted against a beginning trend in the Soviet society that appeared in full scale much
later when the regime planned to change the direction of the mighty Enisei in Siberia as
an example. Other examples of negative impact on the environment are the fate of some
112
Ну ладно. Итак, что же ему нужно в защитах вашего революционного интереса? - Известно что
- прописать меня (ibid. p 171).
113
А вдруг война с империaлистическими хищниками? (ibid. p 174).
114
[…] пишите какую то мерзость (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 59).
55
of the lakes (the case of the lake Baikal and that of Aral). Actions of this kind have let
to ecological disasters, the consequences of which are impossible to estimate completely.
In The Heart of a Dog Bulgakov maintains that man's Nature is always the same
(good and evil at the same time) and that therefore there can't be anything called "a new
man". Man is always the same and cannot be changed by means of biologic or social
experiments. This view of his can be seen as his humanist credo and interpreted as a
vindication of traditional human dignity. For Bulgakov the Soviet proletariat did not
represent "the new man". He holds that those who believed this had fallen an easy prey
to the Bolshevik propaganda that in its turn was built upon a misinterpretation of the
theories of Marx. Bulgakov's view can here be associated with the traditional role of an
author as one who is able to confirm and corroborate Man's conception of her/himself.
In The White Guard the value of a comfortable life in a private home (as it was
conceived by the Russian traditional intelligentia) was vigorously defended as well as in
The Days of the Turbins (to be dealt with in the following chapter). In The Heart of a
Dog Bulgakov's defence of the same value is very well illustrated by his description of
the everyday life of Professor Preobrazhensky. Seven rooms were an incredible luxury
in Moscow of the 1920ies but the author's view is that the professor's work and lifestyle
demanded this space and even more.
Finally, in The Fatal Eggs Bulgakov expresses his high estimation of urban life.
His feelings are, however, no longer associated with his native city, Kiev (as in The
White Guard) but with Moscow in the time of NEP. He evidently appreciated the development of the urban life in the Russian metropolis during this time. In his fantasy he
also extrapolates this development until 1928.
In the two texts, Bulgakov is thus eagerly vindicating a number of values that have
for long been of great importance for the Russian pre-revolutionary intelligentsia and
for well-educated people in the whole of Europe. He was himself fascinated by philosophy and science but did not have the view that it should or could be available for the
masses. His opinion was not so strange, as most of the Russian people had been illiterate and had not been able to understand much more than what the popes had told
them.115 The new political ideology had replaced the old religion and the censors had
replaced the dogmatic popes. Bulgakov was certainly dreaming of the intellectual world
that had existed before the revolution (though he was well aware of the fact that tsarist
Russia had been backward).116 His ambition was to preserve everything that earlier had
partly transformed Russia into something that resembled Western Europe.
The traditional ideas and values defended by Bulgakov in these two texts origin also
to some extent from antiquity. Implicit references to Plato (the role of education) and
Sofokles (the idea of sophrosyne) have been identified as well as references to Greek
philosophers' general conception of Nature (due respect of Nature). In some cases the
115
Wells made a sharp observation in his book Russia in the Shadows (pp 125sq): "Just opposite to it
[i.e. the little chapel] on a plaster panel on a house front, is that now celebrated inscription put up by one
of the early revolutionary administrations in Moscow: 'Religion is the Opium of the People'. The effect
this inscription produces is greatly reduced by the fact that in Russia the people cannot read."
116
Для меня нет никвких сомнений в том, что эти второстепенные славянские государства, столь
же дикие, как и Россия,представляют великолепную почву для коммунизмаю.”I am convinced that
other Slavonic countries that are as undeveloped as Russia demonstrate a fertile soil for Communism due
to their ignorance” (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 5, my translation).
56
origin of the ideas and values are to be found in the period of Renaissance and Humanism. In other cases he reproduces values typical of pre-Revolutionary intellectual middle
class life (the importance of a private home) and typical of the urban elite (he has however left his native city and is now fond of Moscow in the twenties).
The analysis of the last two texts has demonstrated that Bulgakov now has taken a
second step in his development of being a vindicator of traditional ideas and values. In
the new social context his intension is no longer to explain the fall of the old regime as a
consequence of disappearance of virtus but to defend certain traditional ideas and values
now threatened by the new regime.
A look into his workroom
It is now time to consider how Bulgakov is developing his defence of traditional ideas
and values in the two texts. Satire is his main instrument. The concept of "satire" refers
both to a literary genre created by the ancient Romans and reused by authors during the
Renaissance period and, more generally, to a way of creative writing used within other
genres and regarded as an efficient instrument adapted to influence the general opinion.
Bulgakov's satire in the two texts can be associated with the second meaning of the
word. His choice of literary genre was instead science fiction. Here he found a model in
H.G. Wells, a popular author in the Soviet Union at this time.
As Milne has already claimed (see Milne 1990, p 85 with the footnote 54), he might
have been inspired to his satirical way of writing by the ancient Greek author Lukianos
whom he was fond of "throughout his life". He may have been particularly attracted by
the Greek poet's ability of writing cutting satires of superstitious thinking and prejudices.
In science fiction the fictitious elements are mostly based on factual or pretended
speculations in science or technology. In The Fatal Eggs and in The Heart of a Dog
Bulgakov, however, displays an unconventional blend of such fiction and of contemporary facts. The dominating elements of the two stories refer to Bulgakov's own factual
world, a world built upon the power of the Bolshevik regime, upon its dubious interpretation of Marxist thinking and upon its overestimation of scientific and technological
innovations. Bulgakov is therefore mainly speaking about his contemporary society and
not about the future. It is a paradox that, at the same time, he seems to have anticipated
ideas much later promoted by the Soviet regime.
When dealing with contemporary Soviet society, Bulgakov also makes use of his
previous method of blaming certain phenomena that are opposite to such values that are
dear to him. Doing this Bulgakov is in line with what Greenblatt claims to be the role of
literature, i.e. to enforce "cultural boundaries through praise and blame". He had to do
this in a fairly harsh environment.
The reception of the two texts
The reception of the two texts can be described as an illustration of Greenblatts concept
of "social energy". Both texts aroused strong reactions. The Fatal Eggs, published in
February or March 1925 was partly met by laughter and amusement and partly by ideological wrath (Milne 1985, pp 45sq). While the publishers "greeted The Fatal Eggs with
enthusiasm, since it was a work, which would attract and satisfy readers" (Proffer 1984,
p 121), most critics were negative (Milne 1990, pp 45sq). A review in Izvestiia by
Averbakh is of particular interest:
57
Bulgakov's stories are wholly consistent, he has one mood and one theme.
The theme is the depressing senselessness, confusion and uselessness of
the Soviet way of life, the chaos arising from the Communist attempts to
create a new society (translated by and quoted from Milne 1990, p 59).117
Averbakh (who later became leader of Russian Association of Proletarian Writers,
RAPP) is here articulating critics that partly confirm the interpretation made during the
analysis above. Bulgakov demonstrated in The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog very
clearly that he refused to accept the Soviet way of life. Instead he had been defending a
number of traditional values, some of them based on ideas of a very old origin in European culture.
None of Bulgakov's works contain such an outspoken criticism of the Bolshevik
regime as The Heart of a Dog. This text instigated only the interest of OGPU and the
manuscript was confiscated by them together with Bulgakov's diaries in 1926 (Shentalinsky, Donos na Sokrata, 2001, p 275). The reason was certainly that Bulgakov in The
Heart of a Dog had transgressed the limits of freedom of speech in the Soviet Union.
After Averbakh's article in Izvestia in September 1925, the ideological climate
around Bulgakov became colder. After the confiscation of The Heart of a Dog he successively entered upon a long inner exile (see Chapter 6).
Chapter 4. The White Guard transformed to The Days of the Turbins
117
Рассказы М Булгакова цельны, выдержаны, единое в них настроение и единая тема, Тема эта удручающая бессмыцлица,путанность и ничтожность советского быта,хаос, рождающийся из коммунистических попыток строить новое общество (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 202).
58
Introduction
The background of the chapter
With the next selected text the reader is back to Kiev and the dramatic events there in
1918-19. Bulgakov is now an established author in Moscow. The first thirteen chapters
of The White Guard had appeared in the journal Rossiya (see p IX) in early 1925 and
The Fatal Eggs was about to be published in Diaboliad collection in May 1925, when
he in April 1925 was asked by the Moscow Art Theatre (MKHAT) to adapt The White
Guard to the stage. This offer created a new situation for Bulgakov as a vindicator of
traditional ideas and values. He was to be exposed to the interest of the Repertory
Committee, an organ of theatrical censorship. This means that he had to make a third
step in his development as a defender of ideas and values that were not in harmony with
the Soviet ideology. The preparation of the text of the play for the theatre was a much
more public procedure than the writing of the earlier texts.
The genesis of the play was, indeed, a rather complex process. Lesley Milne has
summed up what is known about the various steps of this process in her Mikhail Bulgakov: a Critical Biography, 1990 (pp 96-116). The offer of the theatre affronted Bulgakov with both the task of rewriting the entire story of the novel in order to transform it
into that of a drama and of confronting a more intense ideological control from the side
of the authorities. Bulgakov dedicated most of his time in the spring and summer of
1925 to the first part of this task, being on holiday in the Crimea (Curtis 1991, p 64).
His task was not easy though he already had had some experience as a playwright. It is
necessary – as a background of the analysis of this text – to dwell, for a while, upon the
process of its writing, rewriting and staging.
A first version of the play (entitled The White Guard) is preserved from JuneSeptember 1925.118 This version consists of five acts and 12 scenes. It follows the novel’s sequence of events but its character of drama is not yet finished. The task to develop the dramatic character of the play was first of all within the competence of the theatre and therefore a question between the author and the directors of MKhAT. The question of the political acceptability of the play had, however, to be judged by the political
authorities. The People’s Commissar of Education, Lunacharsky, was asked about his
opinion. He did not like the play as such but had nothing to object to it from an ideological point of view.
Bulgakov was therefore from the beginning under pressure only from the theatre to
rewrite the manuscript in order to facilitate its success on the stage. During this process
he often reacted with indignation to the theatre’s criticism but as a rule, he gave way
after some time (Curtis 1991, pp 64 sq). In January 1926 he presented a new version
showing a number of substantial changes compared to the first version. The play consisted now of four acts but still of 12 scenes. The theatre’s rehearsals of the play began
in late January and went on till late June 1926. On 24 June the play was performed “in
full dress” in front of the Repertory Committee, the central organ of theatrical censorship. On the next day the Committee declared that the play was unacceptable in its present form. The Committee required that the play should be altered according to its directives (Milne 1990, p 106; Shentalinsky 2001, p 268).
118
I have used the edition of Bulgakov's play in its various redactions collected in P'esy 20-kh godov, pp
35-160.
59
In this situation, Bulgakov was not willing to make any greater alterations but, from
now on, he and the theatre were united in their struggle against the authorities of censorship. The interest of the author to see his play on the stage was self-evident. The theatre was, in its turn, in a desperate need of a play having a contemporary theme. The
rehearsals of Bulgakov’s play is also said to have bridged an existing gap between two
generations of the theatre.
Before the rehearsals were resumed after the summer vacations on 24 August, a
four hour long meeting between Stanislavsky, Bulgakov and the leading representatives
of MKhAT took place. During their consultations about insertions and additions to the
play, its final shape was established, now consisting of four acts and seven scenes. The
Repertory Committee did not accept, however, this version of the play, for the first time
entitled The Days of the Turbins. The decision of the Committee was taken on 17 September. After some lobbying from the side of the theatre, a new rehearsal took place in
front of the Repertory Committee on 23 September. Now the Jew episode had been
eliminated from the Petlyura scene,119 and the sound of the “Internationale" in the very
final scene of the play had been made louder.120 This version was finally acceptable in
the view of the Repertory Committee and it became then the canonized version of the
play.
An Official Rehearsal was carried out on 2 October. The first public performance
took place on 5 October, 1926.121 The play was a complete success, later often compared to Chekhov’s The Seagull that had been the great success of Moscow Art Theatre
in 1908. But after one season The Days of the Turbins was banned. On 3 October, 1927,
Stanislavsky wrote a letter to Rykov, a member of the Central Committee, asking for
permission to continue to play The Days of the Turbins. " […] I am sorry to disturb you
but I have to do it in order to save Moscow Art Theatre that I am in charge of. After
'Turbins' were banned, the theatre is in a hopeless situation not only financially but also
regarding the repertoire" (my translation).122 On 10 October the Central Committee consisting of Stalin, Bukharin, Voroshilov, Kalinin, Molotov and Rykov signed a resolution
of the content: "Immediately withdraw the ban to stage The Days of the Turbins in the
Art Theatre" (my translation).123 After another about 300 performances the play was,
however, banned again in March 1929 together with Bulgakov's all other plays.
In February 1932, The Days of the Turbins were allowed again (Proffer 1984, p
334).124 As has been emphasized by many scholars, its survival on the stage was much
119
It was Stanislavsky himself who decided to cancel this scene and it was not due to the press from the
authorities according to Bulgakov's third wife (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 94). According to his second wife it was not Stanislavsky but Glavrepertkom (ibid. p 352) that urged the elimination
of the scene. In his letter to Moscow Art Theatre Bulgakov wrote: Я не согласен на удаление Петлюровской сцены … Петлюровская сцена органически связана с пьесой. "I do not agree with cancelling
the Petlyra scene …The Petlyra scene is organically connected with the play" (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 19141940, p 144, my translation; cf. also Milne 1990, p 74).
120
According to Milne (1990, p 105) and Proffer (1984, p 193 with note 17). In the text of the play it is
only said that one hears hollow music (глухая музыка).
121
See Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 155.
122
Мне очень стыдно беспокоить Вас, но я принужден это сделать, чтобы спасти порученный мне
Московский Художественный Академический Театр. Он после запрещения пьесы "Турбиных",
очутился в безисходном положении, не только материальном, но и репертуарном (Vospominania o
123
Отменить немедленно запрет на постановку "Дней Турбиных" в Художественном театре (ibid.).
124
According to V. Losev (the editor of Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006) it was Gorky who
wrote a letter to Stalin and convinced him to allow The Days of the Turbins again (ibid. p 428).
60
due to Stalin (who attended its performances 15 times). After the restart, the play was
once more a great success. But at the new opening night on 18 February, 1932 Stanislavsky considered it was clever of Bulgakov not to go out on the stage (Milne 1990, p
196). The public continued to love the play and it was always house full. On 6 September, 1935 the day of the 600th performance had arrived. MKhAT did not send any congratulations to Bulgakov (Curtis 1991, p 211). Bulgakov was bitter and wrote later, on 5
October, 1936, to his friend Popov that this day was the tenth anniversary of The Days
of the Turbins and that he (Bulgakov) had got congratulations only from his wife.125
Here is his view on how MKhAT treated him (from the letter to Leontiev on 5 October,
1936):
To day I celebrate an anniversary of the Turbins. Its first performance was
exactly ten years ago (my translation). I sit at the ink well and wait for the
door to open and a delegation from Stanislavsky and Nemirovich to appear, with a speech and a precious gift. In the speech all my crippled or
destroyed plays will be pointed out, and a list entered of all the joys they,
Stanislavsky and Nemirovich, have given me in ten years in the Art Theatre passage. The precious gift will take the form of a large pot made of
some kind of noble metal (copper for example), filled with the very same
blood they have drunk out of me, Io, for these ten years" (translated by and
quoted from Proffer 1984, p 413).126
The purpose of this chapter is to study how and to what extent Bulgakov's way of vindicating traditional ideas and values was influenced by the process of transforming the
story of The White Guard into a play that was to be staged in Moscow. The hypothesis
is that there might appear some interesting differences through a comparison between
the novel and the play.
A second purpose of the investigation is to look for explanations of the differences
that might be identified. Two types of explanations can be assumed a priori. One is the
ideological environment in Moscow in the middle of the 1920ies. The other is the necessity to adapt the content of the novel to the demands and conditions of the stage. The
already given description of the process of transformation of the novel to the play confirms that these two assumptions are reasonable.
At the same time it should be remembered that – according to Bulgakov’s own
view – it is possible to express more in a novel as there is more space there than in a
play (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 162). The novel also has more dimensions than the
play.
125
Stanislavsky had congratulated everybody (actors, director and the author) in a letter (Vospominania o
126
Сегодня у меня праздник. Ровно десять лет тому назад совершилась премьера "Турбиных". Десятилетний юбилей. Сижу у чернильницы и жду, что откроется двеоь и появится делегация от Станиславского и Немировича с адресом и ценным подношением. В адресе будут указаны все мои искалеченные или погубленные пьесы и приведен список всех радостей, которые они. Станиславский и
Немирович, мне доставили за десять лет в Проезде Художественного Театра. Первое же подношение будет выражено в большой кастрюле какoго - нибудь благородного металла (например меди) ,
наполненной той самой кровью, которую они выпили из меня за десять лет (ibid. p 539).
61
The method used in this chapter
The method used in this chapter is very simple. Two analyses will be carried out. In the
first one, a comparison will be made between what Bulgakov blames and praises in the
novel and what he blames and praises in the staged version of the play.
The second analysis consists of a study of how some of the changes that are relevant for my study were introduced into the play during the process of rewriting. As we
saw in the previous paragraph of this chapter, Bulgakov had to rewrite and modify the
text of the play several times. It is not, however, my intension to follow the various
steps of this process,127 but to confine my study to a comparison between the first version of the play, still entitled The White Guard, and the final version that was called The
Days of the Turbins.
Analysis
A comparison between the novel and the play
The complex conflict structure between various actors in and around Kiev described in
the novel has been simplified in the play. According to the author himself, in the play he
only focuses the conflict between the hetman and Petluyra but does this against a general background of the rise of Bolshevik power. Bulgakov made his statement in December 1926, when he had to defend his play against the criticism of a certain Orlinsky.
His words are preserved in a stenographic record.128
The same categories of actors as in the novel are, however, present also in the play.
The analysis of the differences between the novel and the play will therefore be based
on the same seven themes as in the second chapter. This approach will make it easier to
follow the various steps of the analysis.
The role of the tsarist monarchy and the Orthodox Church
In the novel Bulgakov describes how the Turbins and their friends were convinced that
the only legitimate ruler in Russia should be the tsar. They see him as the only one who
could save Russia from Petlyura and from the Bolsheviks. In the play, the Turbins’ and
their friends’ attitudes to the Monarchy is in principle the same, though there is a number of minor but not unimportant differences.
In the performed version of the play, there is no mentioning of tsar Peter I and tsar
Alexander I as the favourites of the Turbins. The episode in the gymnasium, where
Alexei wishes that tsar Alexander I would help the White guard against Petlyura is reduced into the presence of a silent portrait of tsar Alexander I. The episode where Vasilisa is mentioning the acceptability of a temporary dictatorship is completely eliminated.
In the novel, Elena blames tsar Nicholas II for having abdicated in 1917. In the play
this rejoinder has been excluded. In the novel, Bulgakov tells how his characters are
convinced that Monarchy and the Orthodox Church are the two pillars of Russian society. This idea is not stressed in the play.
127
On the different versions, see Proffer 1984, pp 184sqq or Milne 1990, pp 96sqq.
The Russian text is to be found in Pis'ma, pp 116-122 and an English translation in Proffer 1984, pp
241-244.
128
62
Bulgakov has thus reduced the number of instances where the tsar is the object of
the admiration and praise of the characters of the novel. All these omissions are certainly made for ideological, not for dramatic reasons. Still in The Days of the Turbins, however, the Turbins are singing the tsar anthem and drink to his health. This was probably
an attractive theatrical scene but very close to causing negative reactions among ideological critics.
There also is, however, a remarkable addition to the story that has a certain importance for the description of how the characters express their view on the tsars. It is in
a passage where Myshlaevsky is talking about the relationship between the Russian
people and their tsars. Being drunk he mentions people that had killed or mistreated
tsars before. The speech made by a drunken Myshlaevsky is in first hand comical:
Just look at Russian people, Alyosha! They'er just a band of thugs, a
trades union of political assassins. Look at Tsar Peter III… what harm did
he do to them? They all yelled: 'Down with the war!' Fine… he stopped
the war. And then one of the very noblemen the tsar had created smashed
his face with a bottle! Tsar Paul murdered by his own courtiers…And then
that other one…can't remember his name…the nice Tsar with the sidewhiskers, he thinks, let's do the peasants a good turn and free them from
serfdom. Ungrateful devils…what do they do? Throw a bomb at him.
They need flogging, the swine. Alyosha!...Oh God, I feel terrible…
(translated by Glenny pp 30sq).129
The basic explanation of this addition is probably that the comical character of the scene
was introduced to entertain the spectators. After all, however, Myshlaevsky here
demonstrated the negative attitude of the Russians to their tsars, a feature that could
have been intended to please the censors. By this insertion Bulgakov expresses actually
two things. He shows that the Turbins supported the tsar but, at the same time, that
many Russians often had protested against their tsars.
In the novel the picture of the Bolsheviks is fairly negative. Alexei Turbin is the main
mouthpiece of this view. He is said to have been “aged and gloomy” since the very day
when the Red revolution broke out in Petrograd (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.1, p 184). He
also uses the derogative expression “The Moscow disease” when he mentions the following events in Moscow and their immediate consequences (ibid. p 210). He fears that
people in Ukraine will be contaminated. A typical representative of the disease is
Shpolyansky who is portrayed in a disdainful way. Bulgakov lets a poet (presented as a
somewhat mentally unhealthy person) depict Shpolyansky in apocalyptic terms as the
forerunner of the Antichrist (who in its turn is identified with Trotsky).130
129
Алеша, разве это народ! Вель это банлиты. Профессиональный союз цареубийц. Петр Третий…Ну что он им слелал? Что? Орут: "Войны не надо!" Отлично…Он же прекратил войну. И
кто? Собственный дворянин царя по морде бутылкой – хлоп! Где царь? Нет царя! Нет царя! Павла
Петровича князь портсигаром по уху…А этот…Забыл, как его. С бакенбардами, симпатичный, дай,
думаю, мужикам приятное сделаю,освобожу их чертей полосатых.Так его бомбой за что? Пороть
их надо, негодяев. Алеша! Ох, мне что – то плохо, братцы… (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 125).
130
See Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 415sq.
63
In the play the picture of the Bolsheviks is no longer equally negative. The name of
Trotsky is completely deleted from the drama (cf. Proffer 1984, p 176). Shpolyansky, a
creation of Bulgakov’s fantasy, is also completely eliminated. Thereby also disappears
Bulgakov's criticism of the modernist poetry (in the novel Shpolyansky was said to be
the leader of the “Magnetic Triolet”).131
In the play there are even some expressions of sympathy for the Bolsheviks. After
all they are of Russian origin. Particularly Myshlaevsky expresses this opinion. He says
that he will serve in the Russian army though it is Red (P'esy1920-kh godov, p 157). A
speech made by Alexei can be seen as the ideological centre of the play. He draws the
conclusion that the conflict between the Red and the White is over:
I tell you it’s the end of the White movement in the Ukraine. It’s at an end
in Rostov-on-the-Don – everywhere! The people are not with us. They are
against us. That means it’s over (translated by Proffer 1984, p 210).132
In the novel Alexei appears as a much more consistent person who sticks to his principles or – to put it in more positive terms – is faithful to his ideals.
The ending of the play is quite different compared with that of the novel. The novel
mentions the arrival of a Red army to Kiev on 5 February but the very end of the novel
has its focus on the everyday life in the Turbins' home and on the eternal stars in the
sky. In the play, the victory of the Bolsheviks has become much more emphasized. It
ends with a gun salute for the Soviets and the sounds of ”The Internationale” are heard
in the background (see footnote X above). The event described at the end of the play
cannot reasonably be seen as a true prologue of a new time – if one is interested in historical truth. The Bolsheviks remained only in power for a short time in Kiev, when
they had arrived in the beginning of 1919. Later the same year Petlyura came back, and
so did the White general Denikin (Proffer 1984, pp 214sq).
Bulgakov was evidently obliged to retire a long way from his position in the novel,
when he, in the play, described "the Moscow events" and their consequences. The differences are evidently due, in the first hand, to the ideological situation in Moscow at
the time when Bulgakov and the theatre together prepared the staging of the drama. The
differences also may have to do with the geographical perspective. When Alexei Turbin
talks about the Red revolution in the novel, he refers to something that had happened
somewhere far away in the North-eastern outskirts (as regarded from the perspective of
people in Kiev). When the play was staged in Moscow, however, the geographical perspective had of course changed completely.
The role of the hetman
In the play, hetman Skoropadsky is described as more physically present than he ever
was in the novel. In the play he is also provided with a more outrageous temper. He
demonstrates it for instance when he gets the news from Shervinsky that his officers
131
Bulgakov's attitude to modern poetry and theatre was very negative. He said that Bely was writing
nonsense (see Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 37 and Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 87).
About Meyerhold he once said that the Futurists considered him to be a genius, a future. Bulgakov
wished that Meyerhold could leave the present and go to the future at once so one could get rid of him
(Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 91).
132
белому движению на Украине конец. Ему конец в Ростове на Дону, всюду! Народ не с нами. Он
против нас. Значит, кончено (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 144).
64
have deserted. He is also openly shocked by the retreat of the Germans and he loses his
temper when talking to two German officers, von Schratt and von Dust. He also insists
eagerly on contacting the German government as he refuses to accept their retreat.
In the text of the play Bulgakov repeats his blame of the hetman for his cooperation
with the Germans and also for his way of abandoning Kiev in a very critical situation.
Skoropadsky escapes from Kiev to Germany in a ridiculous outfit carried by a Red
Cross car. The fact that Bulgakov provided him with a bandage transforming him into a
wounded German officer gave the author the possibility of making use of his special
sense of humour. The hetman is thus described in the play as just a ridiculous dummy
and not a national leader.
I find therefore that it is motivated to claim that the hetman has been transformed –
in the play – into a more entertaining figure than in the novel. There, the hetman had
been depicted without any particular dramatic nerve. From being a central although
somewhat anonymous character in the novel, whose actions are said to have contributed
to the fall of the Russian Empire, the hetman had been converted in the play into a funny puppet, from a powerful leader into a helpless man. The deep tragedy of the novel is
here, as Milne has put it, replaced by comedy (Milne 1990, p 103).
These changes are due rather to dramaturgical than to ideological reasons. The
Moscow public at MKhAT could not be expected to be interested in hearing too much
about the local policy in Kiev. On the other hand, they could be assumed to appreciate
the acting of a temperamental and partly comic figure on the stage. The censors, in their
turn, had probably nothing to say about Bulgakov’s derogative way of describing hetman Skoropadsky.
Thus, in dealing with this theme, Bulgakov was not obliged to retire from his blame
of the hetman and his policy. Probably, the censors looked upon Skoropadsky mainly as
a representative of the oppressive upper classes and as an enemy of the Red Revolution,
while Bulgakov saw him as a traitor of the Russian Empire and as a coward during the
defence of Kiev. The changes in the picture of Skoropadsky that were made for theatrical reasons were probably not a result of any pressure from the representatives of the
MKhAT but introduced by the author’s own will and creativity.
In the novel, Bulgakov’s attitude towards the Ukrainian language seems to be completely negative. He describes how Alexei and Nikolka are mocking at its use and only pure
opportunists as Talberg and Shervinsky are using it in practice. Bulgakov also seems to
be particularly negative to the fact that people mixed Russian and Ukrainian when talking. In the novel, Bulgakov regards, after all, Ukrainian as a true language when he talks
of the soldiers who were returning from Galicia and who were dreaming of a free
Ukraine (Sobranie sochinenii. vol.1, p 231).
In the play, all the mockery and despise of the Ukrainian language has disappeared.
It also should be noticed that the entire Petlyura scene was carried out in Ukrainian. The
remarkable change in Bulgakov’s way of characterizing the Ukrainian language as it
appears in the play is certainly explained by the fact that some leading Bolsheviks were
Ukrainian and did not speak perfect Russian. It could have aroused their wrath, if he had
kept his old attitude to their language. Secondly, the official line of the new regime was
to respect ethnic and linguistic minorities (see above about Bulgakov's personal attitude
to the Ukrainian language p XI).
65
The role of Petlyura and his men
In the novel, the role of Petlyura is described in very negative colours. The inhabitants
of Kiev see him and his men not only as a threat to the city but also as pogromshchiks
and tormentors of Jews (the population of Kiev consisted of a considerable percentage
of Jews). In the novel, the description of Petlyura’s character as a “bandit” is, however,
somewhat balanced by the colourful description of Petlyura’s men making an impressive parade when they entered the city of Kiev. Here Bulgakov seems to make the picture of Petlyura more complex.
In the play, the hideous episodes of the murder of two Jews told in the novel were
entirely eliminated. Instead a scene of a torture of a Jew by Petlyura's officers who suspected him to be a spy was inserted. A movement supported by muzhiks could not be
presented as consisting of pure bandits and pogromshchicks on a Moscow stage in the
middle of the 1920-ies.133 In the view of the Communists, Petlyura was rather a leader
of a rural uproar. He and his men were after all representatives of the rural population
that had been suppressed for centuries by the upper classes. The change has therefore
certainly some ideological background. Bulgakov’s idea in the novel that – if Petlyura
had not existed, there would have been another man in his place (see above p XII) – is
in line with this explanation. When presenting Petlyura's movement in the play, Bulgakov was evidently obliged to mitigate the negative description of the man and his doings.
Another episode in the novel tells the story how two bandits – under pretext that
they have got their orders from Petlyura – entered Vasilisa’s flat and robbed him is
changed in the play. Here the bandits are tougher.134
In the novel, Bulgakov describes the Germans as robots or chess figures. They are said
to be well organised and well equipped. His attitude to the Germans is probably coloured by the varying views of the local population. He makes the members of the Turbin family criticize the Germans for cooperating with Petlyura, for abandoning Kiev and
handing over to the Whites to fight Petlyura. One of their friends also expresses the
view that the Germans were against the organisation of a strong Russian White army to
fight the Bolsheviks in Ukraine, and therefore contributing to the catastrophe of the
Russian Empire, a view that probably was conform with Bulgakov's own opinion. Apart
from that, the muzhiks are said to hate the Germans for punishing them during their food
expeditions in the countryside. The Ukrainian landlords, on the other hand, are said to
admire the Germans as they could punish muzhiks that dared make an uprising.
In the play, the Germans are described as less hated than in the novel. They are not
either explicitly criticised for their role in the fight around Kiev. They are portrayed not
only as representatives of a military power but also as individuals. Two officers, von
Schratt and von Dust, help the hetman to escape. When the hetman mentions the possi133
Also other circumstances may have played a role. See Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 159: Во многих
газетах русского зарубежья … указывалось, что Сталин в борьбе с опозицией сплош состоявшей из
евреев, использует антиеврейские настроения народа. “In many Russian newspapers abroad it was
written that Stalin in his struggle with the opposition that consisted of Jews, was using the anti-Semitic
feelings of the people“ (my translation).
134
According to Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940 (p 196), a delegation from Ukraine maintained that it had
become a tradition to depict Ukrainians as stupid people and bandits. See below p XIII.
66
bility of the coming of the Entente to help the Ukrainians, the two Germans express the
view of the German government that an intervention of the English or the French was
unnecessary.
Having the conditions of the staging in mind, Bulgakov has transformed the anonymous Germans of the novel into individuals in the play providing them with personal
names. Even if they are described as individuals they are, however, depicted in a stereotyped way. They speak for instance Russian with a very strong accent, a feature probably more intended to entertain the public than to characterize their role characters.
It is remarkable that all expressions of the treacherous behaviour of the Germans as
a group have been mitigated in the play. One can only speculate about the reasons.
Probably the public of MKhAT could not be assumed to be interested in the views of
the population of Kiev and did not care so much about the critical situation of the city in
1918. Another possibility is that Bulgakov has finally realised that the Germans were
formally obliged to leave Kiev after the armistice in November 1918. A third possibility
is that it was not politically expedient in 1926 to criticize the Germans for being treacherous, as Germany and the USSR had just initiated a period of cooperation after the
treaty of Rapallo in 1922.
The role of the White Army and its supporters
In the novel Bulgakov emphasizes the differences between honest and loyal White officers and soldiers (represented by the Turbins and their friends) on the one hand and
disloyal and treacherous White officers on the other. According to him the White generals had opened Ukraine for the Bolsheviks by saving their own skin and leaving the
battlefield. There were only very few loyal leaders in the White army that were concerned about their subordinates.
Also in the play, those who are hated most of all are the traitors in the White army,
particularly the White generals. Myshlaevsky is furious when talking about them and
refuses to be in the service of such leaders any more. Only Studzhinsky is still loyal and
openly wants to join the White general Denikin. Myshlaevsky, who has greater authority on the stage and is able to gain the sympathy of the public, is given a more important
role in the play than in the novel.
The traitors among the Whites are described in the play as in the novel as cowards
without any real virtus and pietas (in the Roman sense of the words). Those who are
escaping from the battle and changing to civil cloths are seen as mere scoundrels. After
all, Bulgakov was thus able to keep his critical view of the traitors in the White army
also in the text of the play.
A comparison between the first and the final version
Introduction
A second comparison, now between the first and the final version of the play, is aimed
to show how Bulgakov – during the process of finalising the text – was obliged to step
back from some of his views on traditional ideas and values still vindicated in the first
version.
67
In the first version of the play, Alexei Turbin is still presented as a medical doctor.
In the final version he has been transformed into a colonel.135 As an officer he expresses
the view that the Whites could not win because the people were against them. This was
probably the most significant change in the transformation of the play from the first to
the last version. It was Alexei's expression that might have contributed to the acceptance
of the play by the censors (cf Proffer 1984, p 210). In Stalin's opinion (see p XIV) it
proved that the Bolsheviks were right when even such people as the Turbins accepted
them.
In the comparison between the first and the final version of the play the same seven
themes as earlier will again be scrutinized. As was motivated above, it does not seem
necessary to follow the successive steps of the modifications but rather to focus only on
the beginning and the end of the transformation process. It is furthermore assumed that
the modifications of the original text of the play were made under a certain pressure
from either the theatre or from the custodians of the ideological purity of cultural artefacts.
The role of the tsarist regime and the Orthodox Church
The positive attitudes of the Turbin family in the novel towards the tsar as an institution
are kept from the first to the final version of the play. For instance, the portrait of tsar
Alexander I is still hanging on the wall of the Gymnasium in the final and staged
version. The passage where Myshlaevsky is claiming that the Russian had killed and
mistreated tsars before was introduced already in the first version of the play, probably
in order to please the censors. Shervinsky's statement in the first version: “In Russia
only one order is thinkable, as it was once correctly said: the Ortodox Church and
Absolute Monarchy" (my translation) has disappeared in the last version.136 It is
reasonable to assume that this last change was due to the pressure from or fear of the
censors.
Myshlaevsky’s attitude to the Bolsheviks underwent certain changes from the first to
the final version of the play. In the first version, he was ready to shoot them. In the last
version he says that he is against Communists but that he can accept the Bolsheviks.
And when Lariosik points to the fact that the Bolsheviks are the same as the Communists he replies that he will serve in the Red army nevertheless, as it – after all – is a
Russian army.
In the first version of the play Trotsky is still mentioned as in the novel and is still
presented as an object of the hatred of the Turbins. In the last version he is not mentioned at all (a fact already noticed by Proffer 1984, p 176). As was mentioned above, in
1926 Trotsky was already loosing his former strong position in the party and would
soon be persecuted by Stalin. It was probably not advisable to mention him any longer
as a Bolshevik leader.
135
Bulgakov's second wife, L.Belozerskaya, maintains that Stanislavsky suggested to combine AlexeiTurbin, the doctor, and Nai-Turs, the colonel, into one Alexei Turbin Colonel. (Vospominania o Mikhaile
Bulgakove 2006, p 351).
136
на Руси возможно только одно. Вот правильно сказано: вера православная власть самодержавная (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 54).
68
The ending of the play was made quite different in the final version compared to
that of the first one. In the first version the play ends with the scene where the Turbins
and their friends are playing cards. Military music is heard from somewhere but Nikolka begins to sing a traditional cadet song. Lariosik says: “Listen, gentlemen, they’re
coming. This evening is a great prologue to a new historical play …”. Mushlaevsky
replies however: “But no – for some a prologue, but for me an epilogue. Comrades
Spectators, it’s the end of the White Guard” (translated by and quoted from Proffer
1984, p 214).137
In the final version of the play the victory of the Bolsheviks has been much more
emphasized. The sound of fireworks is heard when Myshlaevsky announces that the
Bolsheviks are entering the city. This time it is Nikolka who declares: "Gentlemen
today's evening is a great prologue of a new historical play" (my translation).138
When treating the theme of "the Moscow events" and its consequences Bulgakov
thus introduced several changes. It is reasonable to assume that this is due to ideological
pressures, explicit or implicit.
The role of the hetman
Hetman Skoropadsky's role is reduced and transformed in the play already in the first
version. There are only some minor differences between the first and the final version;
just some rejoinders are slightly modified. The theme of the hetman did not contain any
ideological elements that could be questioned by the censors.
In the first version of the play Bulgakov still expressed a scornful view on the Ukrainian
language. In this version Alexei (still a medical doctor) says that the population was
terrorised by an abominable language that does not exist in the world. In the final version of the play there is no such phrase. Alexei, now transformed into a colonel, is much
more temperate in the way of expressing himself. The mockery and despise of the
Ukrainian language has completely disappeared.
The role of Petlyura and his men
During the process of adapting the novel into a play Bulgakov modified the role of Petlyura substantially from the first to the last version. In the first version Petlyura’s men
were still regarded as “bandits”. In the list of the characters in this version, there were –
in line with this – two men called “Bandits”. In the final version two men representing
Petlyura’s army are instead called by their individual names of “Uragan” and “Kirpaty”.
Another two changes are of greater importance: the elimination of two scenes. The
first version of the play included a scene with the torture of a Jew carried out by some
men in the service of Petlyura. This version also contained a scene with a burglary in
Vasilisa’s apartment made by two men who pretended to be in the service of Petlyura
137
Но нет, лдя кого пролог, а для меня эпилог. Товарищи зрители, белой гвардии конец (P'esy 20-kh
Godov, p 109). In 1926 Bulgakov wrote to his friend Pavel Popov that there was no music when the Bolsheviks entered Kiev (Curtis1991, p 79).
138
Господа, знаете, сегодняшний вечер – великий пролог к новой исторической пьесе (ibid. p 160).
69
having the right to search through the flat. Both scenes have disappeared in the final
version.
The elimination of the episode with the tortured Jew was carried out at the very end
of the rewriting of the play. Evidently Bulgakov did not want to eliminate this scene
but, in June 1926, he had to give way to the pressure from the theatre or from the censors (see p XV with footnote ?). He reacted with fury. In a letter to the theatre on June 4,
1926 he protested against the elimination of the scene, as it was “organically connected
to the play” (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 144 see also Proffer 1984, p 190).139 At last
he had to give up in order to save the play.
Obviously it was important for Bulgakov to show that Petlyura was an anti-Semite.
But as many people in Moscow were anti-Semites it was probably not advisable to
show a negative portrait of an anti-Semite and a pogromshchik on the stage.140
Both in the first and in the staged version, the presence of the Germans is reduced to the
hetman scene. This scene is also reduced to a more or less comic episode of the play.
The task of two German officers is to confront the hetman with a fait accomplit, namely
that Petlyura is entering the city of Kiev.
The traitors in the White army are handled in the same way both in the first and in the
staged version. Bulgakov is convinced that it is their and the Germans' fault and not the
massive support and strength of Petlyura that led to the catastrophe. Alexei Turbin is
furious with the Germans and the treacherous Whites. He himself perishes in the battle.
The conclusions of the two comparisons
It is now time to draw the conclusions of the two comparisons in order to clarify to what
extent and in which way Bulgakov revised his vindication of traditional ideas and values when transforming his novel into a play. I will begin with the second comparison.
The differences between the first and the final version
The way of the play to the stage from the first version to the final one was difficult, indeed. Already Bulgakov´s will to keep the preliminary title of the play, The White
Guard, caused troubles. He refused to call his play The End, as suggested by Stanislavsky, and he was still insisting on keeping the preliminary title. Later he uttered in a
139
[…] органически связана с пьесой.
140
The view expressed among others by Zolotonosov that Bulgakov was anti-Semite himself is unfounded. Bulgakov’s realistic descriptions of tortures of Jews have nothing to do with any anti-Semitism (on
this topic see Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 117). Already his personal relations corroborate this view.
His own grandfather’s name was Ivan Abraamovich indicating that he was a converted Jew and his third
wife's farther was of Jewish-German origin.
70
public speech: “Call it [the play] as you wish but stage it” (Pis'ma, p 118 my translation).141 At last, the compromise The Days of the Turbins, was found.
Exposed to the pressure both from the theatre and from the ideological custodians
Bulgakov had to retire from certain features, formulations and passages in the first version of the play. First of all he transformed the main character, Alexei, from a medical
doctor to a brave White colonel. Myshlaevsky’s attitude to the Bolsheviks underwent a
remarkable change during the rewriting process from an eager anti-Communist to a man
who is ready to serve in the Red army, because it consisted of Russians.
Some of the seven themes have not been changed at all or very slightly from the
first to the last version (this judgement refers to the role of the tsar, that of the hetman,
that of the Germans and that of the White traitors). The most important changes are related to the role of "the Moscow events" and their consequences and to that of Petlyura
and of the Ukrainian language. In dealing with the Bolsheviks, Bulgakov had to drop
the mentioning of Trotsky (who was successively losing his position at the time of the
play). He was also obliged to end the entire play by emphasizing the importance of the
arrival of the Red Army to Kiev. Petlyura and his men are no longer regarded as bandits
in the last version but mainly as representatives of the rural population. Very much
against the author's will, the episode with the torture of a Jew was cancelled in the very
last phase of the rewriting process. He also modified his way of treating the Ukrainian
language (i.e. that of the nationalists/separatists) during the rewriting of the play.
The differences between the novel and the final version
The conclusions regarding the differences between the novel and the final version of the
play are presented in the following way. First the differences in blaming are dealt with,
after that the differences in praising. Finally the various reasons of the identified differences are discussed.
In the final version of the play Bulgakov shows the same way of blaming as he did
in the novel only in one of the seven themes. It is when he criticizes the treacherous
White officers who, according to him, had contributed to the catastrophe of the world of
the Turbins (and Russia) by abandoning their duties as officers. In the other six themes
he has introduced more or less important changes in his way of blaming.
Bulgakov uses various methods of changing his way of blaming. One method was
to mitigate a previous negative view. This is the case when he portrays the Germans. In
the play they are no longer exposed to the same hatred as in the novel. Another method
of changing his blame is to eliminate certain characters. This is particularly the case
when he depicts the Bolsheviks in the play. Here, Bulgakov has completely deleted the
name of Trotsky. Shpolyansky, a semi-fictitious character, has also disappeared from
the stage. In him he had – in the novel – concentrated much of his disgust at people who
take side with very different political forces without any scruples.
Bulgakov also modifies certain features in the pictures of the main characters. In
the presentation of Petlyura on the stage he has, as we have seen, cancelled all references to the man’s acceptance of anti-Semitic violence. The blame of the hetman represents a very special case. In the novel he is blamed for being one of the main causes of
the defeat of the Whites. In the play he is rather a comic figure that looks for help from
the Germans and that runs away from the battle of Kiev in a ridiculous way.
141
[…] называйте, как хотите, только играйте. Most of the throes of the composition of the play and
his entire work at MKhAT are described by Bulgakov in his autobiographical Theatrical Novel.
71
A number of differences between the novel and the final version of the play regarding Bulgakov's way of praising can also be noticed. In the play, he has reduced the
number of instances where the tsar is the object of the admiration and praise from the
side of the main characters. Still in The Days of the Turbins, however, the Turbins are
singing the tsar anthem and drink to his health. Thus, the Turbins are still described as
loyal to the tsar. Probably in order to balance these expressions of loyalty to the monarch by his main characters Bulgakov made an addition to the text that was intended to
show another attitude to the tsars that could be associated with the Russian people. This
addition consists of the passage where Myshlaevsky says that the Russians had mistreated and even killed their tsars for generations.
In the play Bulgakov does not mention the necessity of the Orthodox Church as one
of the pillars of the Russian society. Evidently he has resisted here from challenging the
atheist policy of the new regime. But his admiration for virtus and pietas (in service for
the tsar) is still present in the play but transformed into a more conventional kind of
courage: he portrays Alexei as a brave and loyal White officer.
The text of the play does not include any praise of the city of Kiev. Bulgakov may
have resigned from attempting to expose the theatre public in Moscow to a love song of
Kiev. He had also himself begun to appreciate the urban qualities of the capital (see p
XVI).
Bulgakov’s praise of the role of the traditional family and the warm relations between its members and their friends is still there in the play. This value is described as
particularly important in difficult times. It is the very basis of the entire play of The
Days of the Turbins. The drama is therefore still homage to the family and to the cosy
home. In the end of the play the traditional Christmas tree is decorated and all the
friends are together again, except Alexei who has fallen in a battle (cf. Milne 1990, p
72).142
How can one explain the differences in blaming and praising between the novel and
the final version of the play? Quite a few of the alterations that Bulgakov made when he
transformed his novel into a play were probably due to the demands of the theatre (silent or articulated by Stanislavsky and others). These changes were probably the results
of a number of necessary abbreviations of the text for the sake of the length of the performance. Other changes in the story, irrelevant for the author’s vindication of traditional values, were most probably due to the dramaturgical demands of the stage (for
instance the individualisation of the Germans and the comic character of the hetman).
The transformation of the Germans had hardly any ideological ground. Neither the hetman nor the Germans, important in Kiev in 1918, were especially interesting for the
Moscow public in 1926.
Another part of the differences in blaming and praising was certainly due to the
pressure from the custodians of the ideological purity of the literature during the new
regime. This pressure was in first hand carried out by the Repertory Committee, the
central organ of theatrical censorship. It is today possible to identify some effects of that
pressure, particularly through a comparison between the first and the final version of the
play. It can, however, be assumed that some changes were due to the author’s practicing
of some kind of self-censorship. Also Proffer takes the view that Bulgakov practiced
more of self-censorship in elaborating the text of The Days of the Turbins in contrast to
what he wrote in The White Guard (Proffer 1984, p 160).
142
Still in the 1930ies the Bulgakovs were celebrating Christmas with traditional decorated Christmas
tree, candles and presents (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 74).
72
It was certain circumstances in Bulgakov’s personal situation in 1925-1926 that had
made him willing to make compromises. After a failure to emigrate he had decided to
stay in the USSR and try to become successful in the literary world of Moscow. Later in
a letter to Stalin on 30 May 1931, Bulgakov wrote: “I do not know if the Soviet theatre
needs me but I need the Soviet theatre as air” (my translation).143 When he got the possibility to work in one of the best of Moscow theatres, his will to compromise was probably strengthened. It was important for him to see his play staged, so even more important changes were evidently accepted by him, although unwillingly. Bulgakov was
not easy to cooperate with even for those who were positive to the play. He did not give
way without strong protests but at last he had to make substantial retreats from positions
he had taken in the novel.
Two factors were of importance for the acceptance of the final text. The first one
was that Stanislavsky was involved in the process of staging, a fact that probably saved
the play. The second factor was that MKhAT was happy to have come across a contemporary play.144
Bulgakov's defence of certain ideas and values in the play
A big change has taken place in Bulgakov's defence of certain ideas and values in the
play compared to that of the novel. He does no longer apply the Roman idea that historical change can be explained through the moral standard of its citizens. He does no
longer defend a number of traditional values, except two or maybe three.
Now he is mostly focussed on the value of the family and its pietas in relation to the
members of the family and its friends. Also its pietas in relation to the tsar is vaguely
hinted at. Associated with these family values are also the values of the intelligentsia
"with its respect for learning, tradition and human decency", as Proffer once described
them (Proffer 1984, p 223). He finally also praises those among the Whites who demonstrated their courage in the battle, exemplified by Alexei who has been made into a
colonel. The description of his courage has, however, very little to do with the idea of
Roman virtus.
His way of adapting the content of the novel to the play is based on the elimination
of certain actors exposed to blame in the novel, particularly Trotsky and the semifictious Shpolyansky, on the mitigation of the criticism of the Germans, the Bolsheviks
and Petlyura (his anti-Semitism is no longer represented on the stage). On the other
hand, Bulgakov is still critical of treacherous White officers but the focus of the play is
on the family of the Turbins, not on the White Guard. Finally, the colonel Alexei declares that the fighting is over.
The third step in Bulgakov's development as a vindicator of traditional ideas and
values is characterised by his increased cautiousness in expressing his views. Factors of
importance behind this cautiousness are in first hand the activity of censorship, in second hand his self-censorship and, finally, his own intense will that the play should be
staged at last.
143
Не знаю, нужен ли я советскому театру, но мне советский театр нужен как воздух (Volshebny
Fonar', p 714).
144
Stalin once said that the play was staged so often, because there was lack of contemporary Soviet
plays (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 195).
73
The social energy released by the play
How reacted the public of The Days of the Turbins, in which Bulgakov, as we have just
seen, succeeded in defending at least some of those values that were dear to him? That
the public received the appearance of The Days of the Turbins at MKhAT with great
interest is well known. The total number of performances was nearly 1000 (exactly
986). Multiplied by the average amount of the spectators this figure gives a measure of
its popularity (hundred of thousands of spectators in all). The appearance of the play on
the stage was, as we have seen above, not continuous.
In order to study the reactions of the public in more detail it is useful to apply the
concept of “social energy” introduced by Greenblatt (see pp XVIIsq). A literary text is
according to him able to influence the thinking and the feelings of its readers/listeners
by provoking laughter, astonishment, wrath and a number of other reactions. One can
therefore say that a literary author provides his/her text with the capacity of releasing
"social energy". Almost every literary text has a certain impact on its readers/listeners.
A play has certainly – in comparison with a novel – a more immediate impact on its
public.
It is fairly easy to register some reactions of the public to The Days of the Turbins
by means of observations made and reported by spectators and critics. The public's reaction is much more difficult to register in the case of The White Guard. The novel was
published as a whole only abroad. To trace the reactions among Russian emigrants or
among possible Soviet readers is hardly possible any longer.
Already the preparation of the final version of the play provoked strong reactions,
not only among the censors (as we have seen) but also among the staff of the theatre.
When finally staged, The Days of the Turbins was probably what the Moscow public
had been waiting for. "Outside MKhAT there is a wall of dealers selling the tickets for
three times a price and at Stoleshnikovy at the window of the photo shop there is a
crowd all day long watching the photos of the production of The Days of the Turbins”
(my translation).145 OGPU was really worried, as they had to acknowledge that from
intelligentsia the interest for the play had been spread to average people and even workers. As Proffer has shown, the New York Times correspondent wrote in November 1926:
The real interest for the audience lies in the fact that this is the first time
since the revolution that the revolutionary period has been presented, so to
speak "without prejudice” and as it really occurred. This is what crowds
the theatre to the limit and creates such a demand for tickets that they are
sold by lot. Those in the waiting queues are numbered, the numbers are
put into a box and drawn out, and only those with low numbers need wait
to buy tickets" (cited from Proffer 1984, p 201).
Bulgakov's second wife Belozerskaya told a story about the public during one performance: "During the third act of the play Elena and Lariosik were waiting... unexpec-
145
Около Художественного театра стоит целая стена барышников, предлагающих билеты на "Дни
Турбиных" по тройной цене, а на Столешниковом, у витрины фотографа, весь день не расходится
толпа, рассматривающая снимки постановки… (Shentalinsky, Donos na Sokrata, p 291)
74
tedly they hear a feeble knocking... both are listening... Suddenly an agitated female
voice from the public says 'Open please, its our people!'" (my translation).146
Even individuals belonging to a Bolshevik family could estimate the attraction of
the play. As an example Proffer has mentioned the case of the author Viktor Nekrasov,
a man with a Bolshevik background who has described his own positive feelings to the
play in his essay "The House of the Turbins" from 1967 (see Proffer 1984, p 222).
However, the play also "aroused a howl of protest" (to repeat the words of Milne
1990, p 110) among the true guardians of the Communist ideology who reacted to the
play and its success very negatively. They realised the quality of the play and suspected
that it could be “dangerous” for the Communist regime. Already at the Official Rehearsal of the play on October 2, 1926, some Party members, present in the public, delivered a protest before the end of the performance (Proffer 1984, p 197). After that a
number of critical attacks on The Days of the Turbins and its author followed. Milne has
put together a well-documented survey of these attacks in Soviet newspapers in October
1926 (1990, pp 110-114). In a number of articles, the press exposed the play to a furious
criticism for not condemning the Whites. At a meeting in the Journalists’ Club this view
showed itself in the discussion according to a report in a newspaper quoted and translated by Milne (1990, p 111): ”All the speakers were unanimous in their condemnation of
the play as fraudulent, artistically false and alien” (italics in original).
A press campaign was organised by two members of the Repertory Committee during the autumn of 1926. There, Bulgakov was attacked for his idealization of the
Whites, while the Red Army was hardly mentioned and replaced by Petlyura’s troops as
“a pseudonym of the revolution”. Furthermore, the author had isolated his characters
from the lower classes not understanding that the Soviet spectator did not feel any affinity with “the golden epaulettes of embryonic Russian fascism”. The Whites were in
themselves typical examples of “petty-bourgeois vulgarity”. The author was also accused for his Russian chauvinism in his description of Petlyura and Talberg. The death
of Alexei Turbin was described with tragic pathos in the play but – interpreted in another way – could have given the impression of “ideological demoralisation”. Another of
the characters of the play, Lariosik, was said to be “definitely socially defective”. The
Bolshevik arrival in the final scene of the play was, according to the reviewer, not given
its serious importance and the sound of the “Internationale” was only an expression of
pure mockery (Milne 1990, pp 109 sqq).
The campaign against The Days of the Turbins continued indefatigably during 1927
and 1928 (Milne 1990, pp 112sq). In the beginning of 1929 the ideological climate became harder. The political community was cleaned up. Trotsky went into exile. The
position of Stalin became stronger than before. This shift in the climate hit Bulgakov
with some delay. Still in February 1929 Stalin defended The Days of the Turbins. This
is illustrated by what happened when a Ukrainian delegation came to meet Stalin. At the
meeting the chief of the ”Glaviskusstvo” (the highest art authority of Ukraine) stated
that they wanted that their visit to Moscow would result in the banning of The Days of
the Turbins. In Dnevnik.Pis'ma 1914-1940, the dialogue between the Ukrainian delegates and Stalin is described in the following way with some inserted commentaries of
the editor:
146
Шло 3 е действие "Дней Турбиных"... Елена с Лариосиком ждут. И вдруг слабый стук ... Оба
прислушиваются ... Неожиданно из публики взволнованный женский голос "Да откройте же Это
свои" (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 156).
75
Everybody was very negative to the play. They accused it of misrepresenting the historical course of events in Ukraine. [One of the delegates said:]
"The revolutionary upraising against the hetman is shown in terrible colours and under Petlyura’s leading while in reality the upraising was lead
by the Bolsheviks." [Another delegate claimed:] "The play is humiliating
Ukrainian people. It became nearly a tradition in Russian theatre to show
Ukrainians as fools or bandits etc". But the true opinion of the delegation
was pronounced by writer A. Desnyak who said bluntly: "When I was
watching The Days of the Turbins it struck me that the Bolshevism defeats
those people not due to the fact that it is Bolshevism but because it creates
a united great and 'indivisible' Russia. This conception strikes anybody;
then it is better without such victories of Bolshevism" (my translation).147
One of the delegates complained that Ukrainians often are presented in a negative way
at the theatrical scenes in Moscow (if this criticism was true, it did not hit only Bulgakov). This is to be seen as a protest from one of the national minorities in the USSR.
The other two speakers dealt with the historical role of the Bolsheviks in the fighting in
Ukraine. The first one only maintained that the leaders of the rural revolt (described by
Bulgakov) were Bolsheviks and not Petlyura. The last speaker seems to indicate that the
victory of the Bolshevik leaders in Ukraine was described in the play as being not due
to the "objective" laws of history but as a result of a conscious policy to strengthen the
Russian Empire.
Stalin agreed that the play was anti-Soviet but added that one cannot allow only
plays about Bolsheviks/Communists as there were 140 million people in the USSR and
only half a million were Communists.
You demand from Bulgakov to show real Bolsheviks, it is not possible to
demand. You demand that Bulgakov should become a Communist you
cannot demand that. The play has both pluses and minuses but I think
there are more pluses (my translation).148
In fact, Stalin defended the play several times. One of his arguments was that he liked
Alexei Turbin's view that they were against their own people that’s why they could not
win. Stalin commented these words in the following way:
If even such people as the Turbins are forced to lay down arms and submit
to the will of the people, confess their cause finally lost, that means that
147
Каждый из присутствующих непременно высказывал резко отрицательное отношение к "Дням
Турбиных". По их мнению пьеса искажала историчеыкий ход событий на Украине, революционное восстание масс против гетмана показано в "ужасных тонах" и под руководством Петлюры, в
то время как на самом деле восстанием руководили большевики, в пьесе унижается украинский
народ (как заметил один из выступающих: "…стало почти традицией в русском театре выводить
украинцев какими – то дураками или бандитами") и т. д. Но истинное мнение делегации выразил
писатель А. Десняк, который без всяких уверток заявил: "Когда я смотрел 'Дни Турбиных' мне
прежде всего бросилось то, что большевизм побеждает этих люлей не потому,что он есть большевизм, а потому, что лелает единую великую неделимую Россию.Этa концепция, которая бросается
всем в глаза, и такой победы большевизма лучше не надо" (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, pp 195sq).
148
"Вы хотите, чтобы он [Булгаков] настоящего большевика нарисовал? Такого требования нельзя
прелъявлять. Вы требуете от Булгакова,чтобы он был коммунистом, – этого нельзя требовать,,
Там [в пьесе] есть минусы и плюсы. Я считаю, что в оснавном плюсов больше" (ibid. p 196).
76
the Bolsheviks are invincible, nothing can be done against them. The Days
of the Turbins is a demonstration of the all – powerful might of Bolshevism. Of course the author is not guilty of this demonstration, but what is
that to us? (translated by and quoted from Milne, 1990, p 110).149
This utterance was made as late as in February 1929. In March 1929 the play was, as we
have seen above (p XVIII), banned. Stalin had evidently changed his mind. The play
was allowed again from February 1932 and was given through most of the rest of the
thirties. Even during this second period of its appearance on the stage it was very popular. Still in 1938, the public was following the play extremely attentively and was in a
state of high tension in the tragic places and laughed much at the funny scenes
(Vospominaiya o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 186).
Thus, the social energy released by the play was strong and many Soviet citizens
were concerned, in both a positive and negative way. The negative reactions to The
Days of the Turbins were certainly due to the fact that many Communists had comprehended that Bulgakov's intention with the play partly was to vindicate certain traditional
(pre-revolutionary) ideas and values in the new ideological environment – despite his
partial retreat from some of his original intentions. It was evidently a disturbing problem to his critics that his message reached so many spectators.
Those who were positive to the play were probably in first hand pleased by its undeniable literary and theatrical quality. It cannot be doubted that quite a few of them
also appreciated Bulgakov's vindication of some traditional ideas and values.
Chapter 5. The case of Zoika’s Apartment
149
Если даже такие люди как Турбины,вынуждены сложить оружие и покориться воле народа,
признав свое дело окончательно проигранным, - значит, большевики непобедимы, с ними, с большевиками, ничего не поделаешь "Дни Турбиных" есть демонстрация всесокрушимой силы большевизма Конечно, автор ни в какой мере "не повинен" в этой демонстрации. Но какое нам до этого
дело? (Stalin, Sochineniia, Vol.11, pp 328sq, here quoted from Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 195).
77
Introduction
The play Zoika's Apartment was written in late 1925. At that time he had been exposed
to ideological criticism for his The Fatal Eggs (in September 1925) and he had already
some troubles in rewriting The Days of the Turbins in order to mitigate objections from
the Repertory Committee (see p XIX). He was now about to learn how to avoid ideological criticism.
Bulgakov is said to have written the play in only five days in late 1925.150 It belongs
to the most successful period of his life as a playwright. Three of his plays were on
stage at the same time in three of Moscow's most famous theatres: The Days of the
Turbins in MKhAT, Zoika’s Apartment in the Vakhtangov theatre and Crimson Island
in the Kamerny theatre. The first public performance of Zoika’s Apartment took place
on October 28,1926 (Proffer 1984, pp 226sq).
The story of the play
This play is, of course, very distant – both in time and plot – from the world of The
Days of the Turbins. The action of the play is taking place in Moscow in the middle of
the 1920ies in the month of May (act 1) and in the autumn of the same year (act 2 and
3). Zoika, the main character of the play, has decided to leave the USSR. She is hoping
to see the boulevards of Paris in springtime. In order to get money for a visa that is very
expensive, Zoika opens (by means of bribing Alleluya, chairman of the house committee) a couture shop as a cover of a brothel in her apartment. While explaining the situation for her "morganatic" husband Obolyaninov (a drug addict ex-count), she is overheard by a former friend, the rascal and gambler Ametistov. He has arrived in Moscow
after seven years in the province and in prison. He menaces Zoika and forces her to accept him as a lodger in her apartment. He becomes the administrator of the establishment and he makes it flourish through his uncommon ability for organisation. One of
the clients of the "couture shop" is Gus, a director of a state industrial enterprise.
Among other guests there are also a poet, a smoking man and a man dancing foxtrot.
Zoika's "husband" gets his drugs from a Chinese man called Kheruvim who is in
love with Zoika's young maid, Manyushka. She is officially said to be the niece of Zoika in order to keep out other people of being placed by the authorities in her apartment
in order to increase the occupancy of the house (uplotnenie). Kheruvim grasps an opportunity and kills Gus in order to get the money he needs to be able to return to China together with Manyushka. They run away. Also Ametistov manages to escape. The play
150
In his autobiographic Theatrical Novel (Teatralny Roman) Bulgakov mentions how he is pondering
the story of the play: "So, for example, it seemed to me there was an opium den downstairs and I even
strung together something which I vaguely conceived of as 'Act Three'. Just this: blue-grey smoke, a
woman with an asymmetrical face, a tuxedo-wearing addict poisoned by the smoke, and a man with a
lemon face and slanted eyes who was creeping up on him with a sharply honed Finnish knife. A blow
with the knife. A steam of blood” (translated by and quoted from Proffer 1984, p 235). Мне казалось,
что внизу притон курильщиков опиума, и даже складывалось нечто, что я развязно мысленно называл - "третьим действием". Именно сизый дым, женщина с ассиметричным лицом, какой-то фрачник, отравленный дымом, и подкрадывающийся к нему с финским отточенным ножом человек с
лимонным лицом и раскосыми глазами. Удар ножом, потом поток крови (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.
4, p 519).
78
ends when Zoika and Obolyaninov are arrested by policemen from the criminal department of the Moscow police (MUR).
The historical background of the play 151
The historical background of Zoika’s Apartment is thus quite different from that of The
Days of the Turbins. We are now (1925-1926) in Moscow, where Bulgakov was living
since 1921. The apartment of Zoika is according to a memoirist thought to be located in
the very house, where Bulgakov himself lived 1921-1924 (Milne 1990, p 118). This
house has no similarities whatsoever with the cosy home of the Turbins in Kiev. In
Moscow the authorities were increasing the occupancy of the houses. More people were
accommodated in every apartment as a consequence of the ongoing housing crisis.152
In the beginning of the 1920ies, the leaders of the Communist party had finally established an undisputed power position in Russia, not least by means of the secrete police. The same year as Bulgakov moved to Moscow (in 1921), Lenin introduced the
New Economic Policy (NEP). The background of this decision was the weak economic
development of the Soviet Union at that time. The revolution and the subsequent civil
war had reduced the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country substantially. In
order to stimulate the economy Lenin proclaimed that the peasants could sell their products at market prices and that small-scale industry and retail trade was open for private
enterprises running their business for profit. Most of these enterprises were selling manufactured articles at market prices.153
This economic policy was a success. Already in 1923, 80% of the small-scale industry had been privatized. This development led to the emergence of a new bourgeois
commercial class that demonstrated its richness in the cafés of Moscow, where they ate
expensive dinners. Referring to such tendencies, Trotsky criticized the NEP and its
commercial representatives (the “Nepmen”).
After the death of Lenin in 1924 the Communist leaders discussed for a while what
Lenin had had in mind about the future of the NEP. Had he really intended to make this
policy a permanent element of the Communist economy? When Stalin had concentrated
the power in his own hands, the NEP came finally to an end. This happened in 1928,
when the first Soviet five-year plan was initiated. The building of a Socialist economy
had begun.
In 1925-1926, however, NEP still characterized the urban life of Moscow in the
same way as Bulgakov had described it in his short stories from 1922 (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 282 and p 295). Some of the activities during the NEP period were
not always in accordance with the law. The plot of Zoika’s Apartment was based on
some articles in the newspapers describing various illegal activities in the NEP Moscow
(Milne 1990, p 117).
151
The source of this passage is Lowe 2002, pp 154-163.
It was also due to the government’s wish to control the citizens and deprive them their feeling of privacy. The value of privacy was very important to Bulgakov. Cf. Lesskis & Atarova 2007, p 198 (see also
above p XX).
153
In Torgovy Renesans (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 218) Bulgakov is describing the rapid change in
Moscow in 1922.
152
79
The purpose of this chapter is to find out whether Bulgakov continues his attempt to
vindicate some traditional ideas and values, this time in a play mainly intended to entertain the public of Moscow. It must be emphasised at once that the character of the play
makes it difficult to identify what Bulgakov really is blaming and, possibly, praising in
this text. Is he criticizing the moral excesses of the NEP-period? Representatives of the
theatre tried to convince the authorities that this really was the case (Proffer 1984, p
229). Bulgakov himself, however, did not approve of director Popov's press (nazhim) to
make the play more revealing of the negative aspects of NEP. He considered it to be
unnecessary and to overdo this aspect of the play (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 15).
According to Proffer, there is no moral dimension in the play at all. She writes:
[…] to look for a moral or a lesson in the work is just as pointless as seeking one in A Flea in Her Ear [a well-known play in English]. In his innocence, Bulgakov quite probably thought that he was writing a gay, uncontroversial play about something every critic deplored, the evils of NEP
(Proffer 1984, p 230).
But has Bulgakov, maybe, hidden some serious intentions behind the surface of joke?
His own characterization of the play may give a first hint to the answer. In a press interview (1926-10-5) he defined the play as a "tragic bouffonade" just before the first public
performance of the play in Moscow (Milne 1990, p 117 with note 57). Later in 1935, he
provided the French version of the play with the subtitle “A tragical farce” (P'esy 20-kh
godov, p 215 – see also below p XXI). His choice of term seems to indicate that he regarded the play as a blend of joke and seriousness. In contrast to this, the director Popov
stated in an interview in Vechernaya Moskva on October 26, 1926 just before the first
opening night in Moscow: "The tragic element has to be put in brackets. It is not tragic
that the characters suffer... but these people have lost their human aspect" (translated by
and quoted from Milne 1990, p 119).154
I claim that Bulgakov's definition of the play should be taken seriously. This claim
is supported by a late (from 1989) introduction to the play. Here, it is said:
The action of the play [i.e. Zoika's Apartment] develops from unusual to
funny and from funny to frightening (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 14, my translation).155
The purpose of this chapter is therefore to test the possibility that Bulgakov after all had
tried to defend certain traditional (pre-revolutionary) ideas and values in an environment
that was becoming more and more ideologically rigid.
Methodological approach
The analysis of the play covers three phases of its existence.156 The first phase is a
study of the adaptation of the original version written in late 1925 to the conditions of
154
Later Popov dissociates himself (otreksia) from the directing of Zoika's Apartment (Vospominania o
155
Действие " Зойкиной квартиры" развииается по нарастанию от необычного к смешному, от
смешного к страшному (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 14).
156
In my analysis I am using the edition of the various versions in P'esy 20-kh godov from 1989. In the
editors’ commentary (ibid. pp 536 sqq) there is some valuable information on the different versions.
80
the theatre and to the prevailing ideological environment in 1926. The second step is
focused on the version that was performed in Moscow from late 1926 till 1928.The third
step of the analysis deals with the version that was translated into French and performed
in Paris in 1935.
The first step of the analysis is thus to study the process of the finalisation of the
text until its first performance at the Vakhtangov theatre in the autumn of 1926. The
underlying question is: was it necessary for Bulgakov to retreat from some expressions
of criticism regarding contemporary phenomena? Was he – as in the case of The Days
of the Turbins – under pressure from the theatre and/or the authorities?
The main study (i.e. the second step of the analysis) is focussed on the version of
the play staged in Moscow in 1926 and based on a study of six selected elements of the
play:
•
•
•
•
•
•
the description of NEP activities in Moscow
the description of the authorities' interventions in the story
the description of the occurrence of bribing
the description of the use of illegal drugs
the description of people's longing to go abroad /to emigrate
the description of human behaviour
The analysis of the version that was translated into French in 1935 will be based on
some observations regarding the differences between the Moscow and the Paris versions.
Analysis
From the original version to the first performance
The original version of the play consisted of four acts and included a scene with the
criminal division of the Moscow police (Moskovsky ugolovny rozysk – MUR). The mentioning of MUR is here, however, most probably an allusion to OGPU. The reason for
this interpretation is that the MUR scene describes how its experts are scrutinising the
main characters of the play at their office. On a screen in the wall they are watching the
faces (maski) of Alleluya, Obolyaninov, Ametistov and the two Chinamen. A voice in
the background is reading their dossiers where no details are missing. Alleluya's, Obolyaninov's, Ametistov's and the Chinamen's dossiers cover their occupation, Obolyaninov's drug addiction, Ametistov's criminal background, Alleluya's acceptance of bribes,
the Chinamens' thefts, trading of illegal drugs and violence. MUR is described as having
detailed information on everybody, from the place of birth to the present status and address.
In order to cover the evident critical character of the scene Bulgakov adds some
amusing details. Three experts from MUR are analysing what they have observed during their visit in Zoika's apartment. One of MUR:s men asks if the maid Manyushka is a
fool, "no" answers the other, she is a "foxtrotchetsa" (i.e. a girl who can dance foxtrot)
and therefore, according to him, she must be clever, as he considered foxtrot to be a
difficult kind of dance. Foxtrot at the same time, was a chocking phenomenon for average Soviet citizens but evidently appreciated by the experts of MUR. By means of this
intermezzo Bulgakov alludes to the double moral of Soviet bureaucracy.
81
The representatives of MUR also discuss the disguise offered by their organisation.
They complain that they have got a wrong false beard. It was not cut as that of commissar Lunacharsky. The wrong beard could therefore reveal them in the eyes of Zoika or
Ametistov who both, according to MUR, were clever people. Consequently, the experts
make fools of themselves by complaining about the incompetence of MUR’s special
hairdresser (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 388).
On the demand of the theatre this scene was cut out. The managers of the theatre
evidently feared the reaction of the censors. Bulgakov wrote on 26 June1926 to Popov,
the stage director, about this and other changes in the text of the play:
You are a director, how is it possible to make a 4-acts play into a 3? [...]
let me know at last if Vakhtangov theatre is going to stage 'Zoika's' or not?
Or are we going to remake it until 1928? […] Soon I shall start to submit a
new 'Zoika's' to the typewritist. If I do not die. If it comes out to be worse
than the first one, the responsibility for it will be on all of us! (The counsil
[of the theatre] in the first place.) (my translation).157
Bulgakov thus warned Popov in his letter that the new version would come out less attractive than the original one. He regarded the MUR scene as most entertaining. The
play had, according to him, definitely lost much of its satire without clear allusions to
the secret service. After all, however, he accepted the exclusion of the scene (Dnevnik.
Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 148). In the case of Zoika’s Apartment, Bulgakov did not oppose
the changes as energetically as in the case of The Days of the Turbins. Still he had a
considerable correspondence with the stage director Popov where he openly articulated
his protests.
Popov was however -– even after the exclusion of the MUR scene – still worried
that the play would be regarded as ideologically unacceptable. He therefore wrote a letter to Lunacharsky who had been against the production of the play. In the interview
mentioned above, Popov also emphasized that the play was an illustration of the dark
side of NEP, showing depravity with the aim of instructing adding that the actors had
tried to make the characters as vulgar as possible (Proffer 1984, p 229).
This tactics seem to have been successful, as the performance of the play was admitted. A representative of the Repertory Committee congratulated the theatre in an
article in Pravda on November 13 (Proffer 1984, p 229). The Repertory Committee's
official stamp of permission is dated as late as November 21, i.e. more than three weeks
after the first public performance (Milne 1990, p 116).
Popov was evidently skilful in navigating in the harsher ideological environment.
He was above all interested in saving a successful performance, not so much to preserve
its satirical content of the play. Bulgakov gave evidently way to the pressure of the theatre but under protest. It is clear in this case that he was concerned with his intention to
satirize the emerging character of the totalitarian Soviet state.
Another illustrative example of the same tendency is when, in the very final part of
the play, Zoika exclaims that the murderers have escaped. A policeman replies that
there is no place to escape to. According to the Soviet view everybody should remain in
157
Вы режиссер, как можно 4х актную пьесу превратить в 3х актную? … сообщите мне наконец,
будут вахтанговцы ставить «Зойкину» илт нет? Или мы будем ее переделывать до 1928 го года?
… На днях я студийной машинистке начну сдавать для переписки новую «Зойкину». Если не сдохну. Если она выйдет хуже 1 й, да ляжет ответственность в этом на нас всех! (совет в первую голову) (Dnevnik Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 146 -147).
82
his own place: " Oh no, madame? Where will they run ? It is not allowed to run around
in the USSR" (my translation).158 This saying was kept in the Moscow version but later
cut out from the French version of the play.
The Moscow version of 1926.
Zoika’s Apartment is the only play by Bulgakov that deals just with Moscow life and is,
in its content, close to the author's short stories about NEP (Proffer 1984, p 225). When
he wrote this play, he was familiar with the urban life of Moscow. He mentions, for
instance, in Moskva 20-kh godov (Sobarnie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 437) that he had been
all over Moscow during the years 1921-1925 and he thought that he had qualified himself to be a city guide. Moscow of the 1920ies was in a permanent change. There were
state enterprises as well as private ones and cooperatives. The huge city was in a period
of a vibrant economic development in contrast to the provincial parts of the USSR.
Also the lives of the characters in Zoika's Apartment are going on in a high tempo.
The administrator Ametistov is dashing around arranging things. Zoika, who dresses the
girls in French gowns that were a rarity and extravagance in the Soviet Moscow, is described as an energetic and attractive woman. She is running both the couture shop and
the brothel effectively.
At the same time, Zoika’s Apartment is revealing the underground world of Moscow
with drugs, criminality, the printing of false money and a black market trading with
gold and currency. But the play also bears the witness of the fact that Moscow is developing into a real metropolis (Sobrane sochinenii, vol. 2, p 295).
The description of NEP activities in Moscow
The main feature of the plot is typical of the NEP period. Zoika has – as a private entrepreneur – opened a couture shop in her apartment. Such initiatives were quite in line
with the NEP intentions. The activities of the shop include even fashion parades. The
visitors are, however, more concerned with the attractiveness of the parading girls than
with the clothes they are demonstrating.
Another element in the description of the NEP environment is the occurrence on the
stage of some characters that are described as typical "Nepmen". One of them, Gus, is a
commercial director of a big governmental company. Stealing state money he spends it
in Zoika's seductive "couture shop". Mentioned in the text also is a "mystical person"
who, according to Alleluya, has taken money from his Trust and left Moscow.159 People
of this kind were robbing and destroying the USSR economy, according to Bulgakov. In
his short story Sorok sorokov that describes Moscow in 1922, he presents Nepmen in
the following way:
Nepmen were driving around in cabs and debauching all over Moscow. I
[i.e. Bulgakov] was looking with fear at their faces and was trembling
thinking that they will fill up whole Moscow, that they have golden
158
Что вы, мадам? Куда это они сбегут? По СССР бегать не полагается! (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 213).
Trusts were big companies that emerged during NEP. Cf. Proffer’s commentary: "Trusts coordinated
the interests of different industries and were heavily subsidized by the government; the directors were
given a free hand to build up selected industries to their former levels. Much of the money Gus' spends in
the play theoretically belongs to the government. During NEP it was claimed that literally thousands of
shady businesses were operating in Moscow" (Proffer 1984, p 228).
159
83
deisatki in their pockets, that they will throw me out off my room, that
they are strong, with sharp teeth, are aggressive and have hearts of stone
(my translation).160
But at the same time he sees positively at the development of the urban life of the capital. In the same short story two men are out in the streets of Moscow.
"Moscow is humming, it seems", I said, leaning over the railings. "That's
NEP", replied my companion, hanging on to his hat. "Forget that accused
word!", I replied. "This is not NEP, but life itself. Moscow is beginning to
live" (translated by and quoted from Milne 1990, p 118).161
In the play Bulgakov does not blame Zoika for being a private entrepreneur or for being
the owner of a brothel (even if some Bolshevik spectators may have believed so). But
the Nepmen appearing in Zoika's Apartment are described in more negative terms. It is
reasonable to assume that Bulgakov did not like that kind of people (see the quotation
above). As a contrast he described some of the rascals in the play, for instance Ametistov, as much more charming persons than the Nepmen. Bulgakov wrote in a letter:
In spite of all the negative features of his character [i.e.Ametistov] is
somehow very attractive, he has easy to become friends with people and is
indispensable in the company. His wild lying astonishes the surrounding
[...]. Ametistov lies extremely easily in the wonderful talented manner of
an actor (Bulgakov's letter to Reinhardt, August 1, 1934 (my translation).162
Zoika and her friends are doing what they have to do in their situation. They know that
it is illegal but they have no choice if they want to emigrate. Bulgakov does not blame
them but – himself being a relatively poor intellectual – he blames rich Nepmen. He had
probably more private, not particularly ethical reasons to do that. This criticism does not
strike Zoika and her friends. As Milne already has put it there is "…a strong undertow
of sympathy for Zoika in her determined attempt to make enough money to emigrate..."
(Milne 1990, p 118).
The description of the authorities' interventions in the story
After the MUR scene had been cut out, Bulgakov's most critical satirical picture of the
contemporary authorities had disappeared. But also in the staged version of the play,
Bulgakov made certain allusions to the Soviet leaders and Communist thinkers. Some of
160
Нэпманы уже ездили на извозчиках, хамили по всей Москве.Я со страхом глядел на их лики и
испытывал дрожь при мысли, что они заполняют всю Москву, что у них в кармане золотые десятки, что они меня выбросят из моей комнаты, что они сильные, зубастые, злобные, с каменными
сердцами (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 2, p 280). Cf. Protaznov's film "Aelita" after Alexei Tolstoi's novel.
161
Москва звучит, кажнтся, неуверенно сказал я наклоняясь над перилами. Это неп ответил мой
спутник, придерживая шляпу. Брось ты это чертово слово! ответил я. Это вовсе не нэп, это сама
жизнь, Москва начинает жить (ibid. p 280.)
162
Аметистов при всех его отрицательных качествах […] почемуто обладает необыкновенной привлекательностью, легко сходится с людьми и в компании незаменим. Его дикое вранье поражает
окружающих… Аметистов врет с необыкновенной легкостью в великолепной, талантливой актерской манере (P'esy 20-kh godov, pp 14sq).
84
these allusions are quite innocent. When Ametistov tells Zoika how he managed to
come to Moscow from Baku he explains that he supported himself selling portraits of
the political leaders. Some of the leaders are also alluded to by name in the play, for
instance Kalinin (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 176). Karl Marx is also present in the minds of
the spectators, when Ametistov takes down his portrait and replaces it with a painting of
a naked nymph when he transforms the couture shop into a brothel.
Some representatives of MUR are present in the play. Zoika identifies them as men
belonging to the Moscow criminal police but their acting is more like people from OGPU when they are searching through the apartment of Zoika when she is out, as they
have keys of all kinds.163 MUR is described as a very effective and shrewd organisation.
It had recruited qualified experts who know their trade perfectly well. Bulgakov could –
for obvious reasons – not allude directly to the secrete police (OGPU) but in his description of the behaviour of MUR he succeeded in describing how the Soviet police organisations treated the citizens in a way unworthy of any human society.
Thus, in the staged version of the play, Bulgakov succeeded in expressing some
critics of the methods of the police but concealed his critics in his humorous and entertaining way of telling the spectators about the authorities' interventions in the plot.
The description of the occurrence of bribing
The flourishing Moscow of the NEP-period was full of bribery. The chairman of the
house committee, Alleluya, is corrupted and takes bribes. He is eager to become a
member of the Communist party and therefore he pretends – in front of the police – that
he is controlling the apartments of the house. He has the keys of all apartments so he
can come in and out as he wishes. That means that he can be a perfect spy in the service
of the police. "A House Committee is an eye that never sleeps, do you understand? We
sleep with one eye and watch out with another one" (my translation), says Alleluya.164
The man is exceptional in his way of being greedy. Ametistov says that he has seen
those who take bribes but never such a greedy one as Alleluya. In the end of the play
when policemen from MUR came with the arrest order, Zoika tells them that Alleluya
has "chervontsy"165 in his pocket with which she has bribed him. Zoika is forced to
bribe everybody to reach her goal. The powerful man Gus who can provide her with a
visa is therefore also in his turn “bribed” by Zoika who entertains him in her brothel.
Bribing had been a well-known and traditional behaviour in tsarist Russia. Therefore it is not the phenomenon as such that Bulgakov is criticising. It is the Soviet double
moral he is again blaming. The new Soviet man was officially supposed to be free from
all vicious sides of old Russia, i.e. no bribes, no gambling, no illegal drugs and no
brothels.
The description of the use of illegal drugs
163
Bulgakov's own flat was searched by OGPU in 1926 just some days before the first public performance of Zoika's Apartment (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 140).
164
Домком око недреманное. Поняла? Мы одним глазом спим а другим видим (P'esy 20-kh godov, in
the Moscow version, p 162 and in the Paris version, p 216).
165
The first Russian chervonets was coined in 1701. It weighted 3,4 gr. of gold. From 1922 to 1947 chervonets was a banknote that corresponded to a pre-revolution coin worth ten rubles (Lesskis & Atarova
2007, p 420).
85
Different kinds of drugs were available in Moscow in the 1920s. Gazolin and Kheruvim
are two Chinese men who supply Russian consumers with morphine, opium and cocaine. Being a physician and a former drug addict himself, Bulgakov gives a detailed
description of the preparation and use of these drugs. His attitude is tolerant in a moderate way. He lets Ametistov say that it is necessary to have some cocaine when working
in a high tempo. He also describes how Zoika, who is very fond of Obolyaninov, helps
him with his injections of drugs. She is not an addict herself but does not try to convince
Obolyaninov to stop using morphine. The guests at her party are smoking opium.
When Bulgakov illustrates the use of illegal drugs in Zoika's Apartment, it is more
associated with luxury than with misery. In his short story Morphine that is autobiographical, he is more negative and warning (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 1, pp 147-178).
The description of people's longing to go abroad/to emigrate
Zoika is dreaming of going to Paris with Obolyaninov. Kheruvim is dreaming of going
to Shanghai with Manyushka. The wish to go abroad, particularly to the West, was a
current phenomenon in Moscow in the 1920ies. Quite a number of people tried to emigrate.166 Most of them gave up their hope that the Bolsheviks would be replaced by another regime one day. Bulgakov here seems to anticipate his own destiny in Zoika's
Apartment, as he was never allowed to go abroad. But in 1926 he had no intentions to
leave the USSR, as he had just been established as a popular playwright in Moscow.
Zoika's aim is to earn money by means of her NEP activities and then leave for Paris. She is aware of the fact that she is taking a risk but she is determined to take it. How
she is thinking emerges from the episode with Ala, the mistress of Gus. When Zoika is
convincing Ala to take a job in the brothel she knows that they are both participating in
a high-risk project. The goal excuses the method. Nobody will know what Ala was doing in a couture shop. First Ala behaves in a highbrow manner but at last she accepts
Zoika's offer. Her lover Gus refuses to supply her with visa, as he wants her to stay in
Moscow. But Ala is determined to leave at any price.
Bulgakov does not blame those who want to leave the Soviet Union, an idea that
was regarded as disloyal by the representatives of the regime. Instead he seems to be
praising Zoika's ambition to defend the value of personal freedom and integrity. Human
beings must have their privacy and they must have possibility to go abroad if they wish.
It should not be necessary to use grotesque ways of bribing to get a visa.
The scene when Gus recognizes one of the girls as his own fiancée now working
for Zoika to earn the money to emigrate to Paris is melodramatic but not ridiculous:
Bulgakov lets Ala leave the apartment before the police arrived. Again he seems to look
upon the characters of the play with great sympathy.
The description of human behaviour
In the play, Bulgakov describes how the former count Obolyaninov refers to honour
several times but – as he is a drug addict – it sounds as daisy hallucinations and pure
nonsense. Though an attentive reader/spectator would notice an allusion to something
166
Some emigrants such as A. Tolstoi came back to the Soviet Union but they were offered such a high
standard of living and perfect conditions that they could hardly refuse. They also could travel as they
wished and they could enjoy servants, comfort, respect and fame.
86
extremely important that was lost after the revolution. According to the editor of P'esy
20-kh godov, Ninov, Bulgakov has – by depicting "the exotic plant" Obolyaninov –
strengthened his accentuation of what he regarded as permanent virtues. The ex-count
does not understand what is going on in the Soviet reality. He does not change his mind
and behaviour in a new situation. Also according to the same Ninov, Bulgakov wants to
show that there are precious human values that are persistent (P'esy 20-kh godov, p
549).
In a totalitarian society like the USSR people are more occupied with the problems
of surviving than of preserving their honour. The everyday life that was hard and humiliating (shared apartments etc) in Moscow in the 1920ies revealed the most awful features of Man's nature. Bulgakov himself was trying to live a decent life but it was not
easy (cf. Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 624).
The reception of the play in the USSR
The play was an immediate success at the Vakhtangov theatre. It was performed more
than a hundred times in a season (Milne 1990, p 120). It was always drawing full house.
Stalin saw it eight times (Proffer, p 230). It was also set up at theatres all over the Soviet
Union: Leningrad, Saratov, Tiflis, Rostov-on Don, Sverdlovsk and Baku (Milne 1990, p
116). It was finally taken out from the repertory of the Vakhtangov theatre as late as in
1928.
As we have seen, the production of Zoika's Apartment had not led to the same turbulence as that of The Days of the Turbins. The Repertory Committee approved it with
comparatively few complications. Certainly, Lunacharsky was against the play but he
allowed it's staging at last. The official critics were, however, all but enthusiastic. Their
criticism is well covered in the works of Proffer (1984, pp 229-231) and Milne (1990,
pp 119-123). Some critics meant for example that the play was a deliberate provocation
and not a farce. It was, according to them, describing "lightly clad women, characters
desperate to escape abroad and members of the criminal classes who are too attractive to
provide a moral lesson" (Proffer 1984, p 231). Some critics regarded the play as "pornographic" (ibid. p 229).
The reaction of the leading theatrical managers was more mixed. Stanislavsky uttered some critical comments about the acting but he is said to have laughed a lot (Proffer 1984, p 230). Meyerhold meant that Zoika's Apartment was "dangerous" but he was
still interested in staging a play written by Bulgakov (Milne 1990, p 123).
The special blend of Bulgakov's talent made it possible for him to create individuals
that were really alive. This contributed certainly to the success of the play. We are allowed to feel sympathy for them (cf. Proffer 1984, p 233). The play must therefore have
generated much social energy. Some critics said: “Nepmen watch The Days of the Turbins to cry and Zoika’s Apartment to laugh” (my translation).167
The world that Bulgakov is describing is unsightly but there is no condemnation
until the murder takes place. When Zoika and Oboyalninov are arrested one feels sorry
for them. The end of the play is typical of a tragic farce. The real criminals and assassins escape. What the public laughed at is "no longer funny" (Proffer 1984, p 233). Today one can only speculate about the emotional reactions of the public but it is reasonable to assume that few left the theatre in a purely pleasant mood.
167
[…] непманы ходят на "Дни Турбиных" , чтобы поплакать, а на "Зойкину квартиоу", чтобы
прсмеяться (Pis'ma, p 116).
87
The Paris version of 1935
Bulgakov’s play Zoika's Apartment attracted also the interest of a French theatre. For
this purpose he prepared in the early 1930ies a revised Russian version (to be found in
P'esy 20-kh godov, pp 216–248). Its translation into French created however – as we
shall see – some problems that illustrate, how Bulgakov, in the early 1930ies, had been
more precautious in order not to irritate the Soviet regime. When he had accepted the
idea of a French translation in 1933, he became worried about the possible existence of
a pirate copy of his play in France. In a letter dated August 30, 1933 to his brother Nikolai (who was living in Paris), Bulgakov wrote that he had heard that a version of the
text of Zoika's Apartment already circulated abroad (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p
308). It was also said that the play, entitled "Maison moderne", had already been staged
in France (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 108).168
The process of translating the play into French
What is certain is that the process of an – by Bulgakov – authorized French translation
of his revised version of Zoika's Apartment started when Maria Reinhardt, in a letter
from July 1933, asked for Bulgakov's permission to translate Zoika's Apartment into
French (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 547). In a letter to his brother from August 13,1933 Bulgakov wrote that he had agreed and given his permission for a translation and the staging of the play in Paris (Curtis 1991, p 160; cf. Pis'ma, p 264).
After some time, Bulgakov became worried, however. He wanted to be able to
check the French translation of his revised Russian version himself. On 31 July, 1934
Bulgakov sent a letter to Reinhardt where he wrote:
I have received from my brother the French text of Zoika's Apartment and
am rushing to send you some corrections, which are virtually important,
mistakes I noticed after just a hasty read through the translation [...]. Neither the word 'Lenin' nor the word 'Ilyich' appears in my text [...]. I don't
have the word 'Stalin' anywhere, and I request you to strike it out. And in
general, if the names of members of the Government of the USSR have
been inserted anywhere, I request you to remove them, since their inclusion is utterly inappropriate and is a complete violation of the author's text
(translated by and quoted from Curtis 1991, p 180).
On the next day, 1 August, 1934, he sent another letter to Nikolai asking him to control
that the names of Lenin and Stalin really were eliminated (Curtis 1991, p 181).
Several months later, he wrote to his brother on 14 April, 1935 telling him that he
had sent some commentaries to Reinhardt (Curtis 1991, p 196). On 29 April, 1935 Bulgakov is able to read the first act of the definite version of Zoika (Vospominaia o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 86). In May he still is going on with adapting the play for Paris and "cleaned" it thoroughly (ibid. p 87). On 8 May, 1935 he wrote to his brother again
"It is absolutely intolerable that the names of the members of the Soviet Government
should figure in a comic text and be spoken on stage" (translated by and quoted from
168
Some of Bulgakov’s friends believed that Bugakov had written a new play called "Maison moderne"
but in reality it seems to have been a ‘pirate’ version of Zoika's Apartment (Vospominania o Mikhaile
Bulgakove 2006, p 108).
88
Curtis 1991, p 200).169 Bulgakov sent the final corrected version of the play to Paris. It
arrived on 14 May, 1935 (P'esy 20-kh godov, p 537). He was evidently still worried
about the possibility that the director would permit any anti-Soviet interpolations in the
text. But in his letter to his brother of July 9, 1935 he confirmed that the text of the play
had been revised by Reindhardt (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 385).
Analysis of the differences between the Moscow and the Paris version
When the play Zoika’s Apartment was finally put on stage in Paris at the theatre of
Vieux Colombier in 1935, the play exhibited quite a few changes compared to the original Moscow version. The new Russian version that was translated into French was provided with the subtitle "Tragichesiy fars v trekh aktakh" (A tragical farce in three acts).
The original Moscow version of the play had only been given the subtitle "P'esa v trekh
aktakh" (A play in three acts).
As the French audience of the play was unfamiliar with the conditions of Soviet
everyday life, this version therefore lacks some sharp details of the everyday contemporary NEP life in the 1920ies. The atmosphere of pleasant decadence is not that obvious
as in the Moscow version. Some comical situations had been cut out. In 1926 Ametistov
was trading the pictures of the Communist leaders; in 1935 he was selling brochures
entitled "Do miracles exist". Bulgakov had also changed some of the names of the characters. Alleluya is for example called Portupeya, Obolyaninov Abolyaninov, Natalya
Nikolayevna, the poet, the smoking man and the man who was dancing foxtrot are not
present any longer. The policemen (earlier called Vanechka, Tolstyak and Petrukhin)
are now replaced by "First, Second, Third and Fourth unknown”.170 They are more
schematic and less shrewd and therefore not immediately associated with OGPU.
In 1926 the last words of the play are Zoika's "Farewell my apartment". In 1935 the
last words are "What was it I told you". This was the reply of the second anonymous
policeman to his colleague and referred to the words of Abolyaninov who had remarked
that one couldn't wear yellow shoes to a dinner jacket. Some features of colloquial Russian language had also got lost in the version translated into French (P'esy 20-kh godov,
p 248 and p 15).
Bulgakov had written the original version of Zoika's Apartment in five days (see
above p XXII) but – when "cleaning" the final version of the French translation – it took
him one week.171 This is an indication of how important these changes were for him. He
had not only to adopt his play to the new audience but also consider the risks of negative reactions in the USSR. In the middle of the 1930ies, the iron curtain had gone down
definitely, Stalin's terror was a fact and would become more and more oppressive. In
this situation Bulgakov felt that he had to be extremely careful with his control of the
text of the play to be staged abroad. Living in the USSR the author had to be more care169
The text runs: Я получил от брата французский текст "Зойкиной квартиры" и спешу Вам послать
те поправки, непбхпдимпсть в которых выяснилась при беглом чтении перевола […]. Ни слов "Ленин", ни слов "Ильич" у меня нет […]. Слова "Сталин" у меня нигде нет, и прошу вычеркнуть его.
Вообще, если где – нибудь еще по ходу пьесы вставлены имена членов Правительства Союза ССР,
я прошу их вычеркнуть, так как постановка их совершенно неуместна и полностью нарушает мой
авторский текст (Dnevnik Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 352).
170
Первый неизвестный,второй неизвестный, третий неизвестеый,четвертый неизвестеый (P'esy 20kh godov, p 215).
171
В течение недели М.А. диктовал '"Зойкину" сильно чистил пьесу (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 87).
89
ful than before about his personal security. For a while he also hoped – but in vain – to
come to Paris and stage the play (Curtis 1991, p 181).
Bulgakov had thus decided to make the Paris version of 1935 less satirical about the
situation in USSR and – at the same time – more adapted to the foreign public.172 He
seems to have been worried mostly about insertions of elements in the text that could
arouse the irritation of the Communist authorities, if the French version of the play
came to their knowledge.
Conclusions of the analysis
The analysis of Bulgakov’s attempts to vindicate traditional views and values in Zoika's
Apartment raises some methodological difficulties. As Proffer has claimed it is not easy
to identify the target of Bulgakov's satire in the play (1984, p 233). Proffer explicitly
maintains that there is no moral dimension in the play at all (ibid. p 230). After my
analysis I do not find it motivated to speak about any traditional values vindicated by
Bulgakov in this text but I claim that it is evident that he clearly regrets the disappearance of certain traditional values and that he does this with great emphasis.
It is first of all quite clear that Bulgakov describes a situation in the Soviet Union,
where a totalitarian state is emerging. The most striking instance of this view is the
eliminated MUR scene, probably demonstrating the work and organisation of OGPU.
This scene was cancelled from the staged version on the initiative of the theatre. After
all, some less open allusions to the emerging totalitarian society were left. Illustrating
details are: the representatives of the Moscow police provided with keys that make it
possible to come in where they wanted and when they wanted. Also the chairman of the
house committee has keys to all apartments and enters, whenever he wants to. The
house committee is always watching out, says the chairman. Finally, according to the
Soviet view everybody should remain in his own place..
Thus, in Zoika's Apartment Bulgakov clearly shows how one important traditional
value had got lost, people's personal integrity. There is no privacy any longer. In the
same play he clearly shows how the personal freedom of physical mobility has been
reduced. One can't change one's situation by fleeing as it is impossible to emigrate and
even within the USSR one can't move as one wants to or to settle where one whished.173
It is reasonable to claim, as Milne does, that Bulgakov does not criticize Zoika or
her environment. Instead Bulgakov seems to describe and explain people's behaviour as
a consequence of the circumstances created by the Bolshevik regime. The target of his
satire can therefore be seen as the oppressive character of the Soviet regime under the
pretext of attacking phenomena associated with the NEP period. Bulgakov's view of the
characters of the play is therefore closely associated with his humanist view of the dignity of Man. In his capacity of a literary author he is only describing the true nature of
human beings: they are good and evil at the same time but the character of society is of
importance for how they behave.
Another traditional value, demonstrated in The White Guard and The Days of the
Turbins, had also disappeared in Zoika’s Apartment, i.e. the value of a pleasant home
environment and the value of close, reliable relatives and friends. The home life in Zoi172
In an anonymous letter sent to MKhAT in 1937 but addressed to Bulgakov it was said on a cut from
the French Communist newspaper L'Humanité that the play was written long time ago and the events
described in the play no longer occurred in the USSR (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 134).
173
It was very difficult to get a registration for census purposes (propiska) in big cities Moscow and Leningrad.
90
ka's apartment is all but cosy and the people of the play cannot trust anybody, anybody
could turn out to be an informer. There are no longer any strong family ties, the most
important value in The White Guard. The religion had been replaced by atheism and
there were no longer any marriages celebrated in the church. For an extremely religious
(but ignorant) people as the Russian at that time, this signified the end of the traditional
family. Though both Zoika and Ala are dreaming of traditional marriages outside of the
USSR. There are no true relations between relatives either. Manyushka is for instance
falsely said to be Zoika's niece.
In short, Bulgakov is deploring the loss of traditional values in the emerging totalitarian and perverted society of the Soviet Union in the middle of the 1920ies. In this
tragic farce (according to his own classification) there was no room for a vindication of
those traditional values that were dear to him, just expressions of sorrow at their disappearance.
Summing up these results, it can be maintained that Bulgakov is blaming the prevalent vices of contemporary Moscow, not so much the use of bribes and drugs but rather
the inhuman interventions of the authorities and their double moral. He is not criticising
the NEP as an economic system but the behaviour of the Nepmen. At the same time he
does not put the blame for the immorality on the individuals but rather on the political
system. In Zoika's Apartment he disclose the emergence of a totalitarian society and its
negative effects on the moral of human beings.
The analysis of the French version does not add much to these conclusions. On the
other hand, Bulgakov’s endeavour to avoid additions to the French translation is an indication of his growing fear that any small mistake would cause him troubles in the period of increasing Soviet terror.
A final discussion
According to Proffer there are “no positive heroes” in the play (Proffer 1984, p 231).
But it depends on how to define “a positive hero”. Bulgakov does not accuse Zoika for
what she is doing and his sympathising with her makes her attractive for the spectator.
Therefore, after all she appears as a positive character. The orthodox critics wanted
characters on the stage to be either positive or negative in relation to the Communist
definition of the words.174 A play could according to them show how a negative i.e.
bourgeois character becomes a positive one, namely proletarian. "Positive" characters of
this kind are not present in the play, indeed.
Ametistov is on the other hand a charming man (see Bulgakov's letter to Reinhardt
above p XXIII). He is a rascal but he is rather entertaining than criminal. He manages to
come from Baku to Moscow by deceiving. He is a chameleon changing from Red to
White depending on the situation. He is Red when talking to Alleluya. He speaks about
deviations to the left or to the right from the real Communist line. And he is White and a
nobleman talking with Obolyaninov "He is lying in the pleasant way of an actor" says
Bulgakov about his character (this passage is quoted on p XXIV). Ametistov makes
jokes talking about drugs.
174
Some critics claimed that the actress Mansurova made Zoika so charming that it seemed that she was
not aware of her crime (Vospominania o Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 637). The actress Orochko is said to
have turned a negative image of Ala into a positive character (ibid. p 339). Ala is the only one in the play
who left the apartment before the police had arrived.
91
Here, one can at last compare how Bulgakov describes and regards the chameleon
character of Ametistov with that of Shpolyansky in The White Guard. The difference is
striking. In a world of traditional values Shpolyansky's behaviour is appalling but in a
world of perverted values as in the totalitarian USSR Ametistov appears as a charming
man that arouses Bulgakov's sympathy. According to Obolyaninov (with his out of date
grandeur) a decent man can't live in Moscow of the 1920ies. Only scoundrels (as Ametistov and his equals) could live well in Moscow in the time of the Bolsheviks.
It is after all possible to show that Bulgakov has succeeded in preserving his preference for traditional (pre-revolutionary) values and humanist values (concerned with the
dignity of Man) also in in Zoika's Apartment. He is still striving "for the enforcement of
cultural boundaries [of a non-totalitarian state] through praise and blame" (to put it in
the terms of Greenblatt).
Chapter 6. Fiction, facts and values in “The Pilate Novel”175
Introduction
175
Chapter six is an abbreviated version of my Licentiate Thesis (in Swedish) presented at the Department of Slavic Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, in March 2006. The focus here is, however,
somewhat different from that in the Licentiate Thesis,
92
Bulgakov's situation as a writer in the USSR became more exposed to the ideological
control of the Communist regime from the late1920ies. However, the blend of his talent
made it possible for him to survive, even in the harsh milieu created by Stalin. He was
adopting novels for the stage, writing librettos for opera etc. He was still a creative
playwright. All this work was done during the ordinary workday. From late twenties till
late thirties, the night was intended for the writing of his “sunset” novel The Master and
Margarita.176 When preparing the manuscript of this masterpiece Bulgakov could for a
while escape from the hideous atmosphere of Stalin’s increasing terror. He was now
about to take his fifth step as a vindicator of traditional ideas and values in the Soviet
context.
Bulgakov continued to work on the manuscript of The Master and Margarita until
his death in 1940 producing several successive versions of the novel (see Proffer 1984,
pp 527sqq; Lesskis & Atarova 2007, pp 180sq). Unfortunately, the author could not
hope that his last novel would ever be published in his own lifetime. His wish was, of
course, to meet his readers when he was still alive. In a letter to a friend in March 1937,
Bulgakov writes, “Some of my well-wishers have adopted a rather strange way of consoling me. More than once I have heard their suspiciously unctuous voices: ’Never
mind, it will all get printed after your death!'” (translated by and quoted from Curtis
1991, p 248).177 As we know, The Master and Margarita was published for the first
time more than 25 years after Bulgakov’s death (in the periodical Moskva in1966-67). It
was later published in the Soviet Union as a volume together with The White Guard and
The Theatre Novel in 1973. In 1990, five volumes consisting of his collected works
were published in Moscow (Sobranie sochinenii). In my analysis I use this later edition.
The main story of Bulgakov’s novel The Master and Margarita takes place in Moscow in the 1930ies (this major part of the book is sometimes called "The Moscow Novel"). But in four chapters (2, 16, 25 and 26) the reader finds himself in Jerusalem during
the last day of Jesus’ life. Due to that, this part of the novel is mostly called “The Jerusalem Chapters” or “The Pilate Novel” (as Pilate is its main character).
In the first of these chapters, entitled "Pontius Pilate", there is a conversation between Pilate and Yeshua after which the latter is sentenced to death. This chapter also
includes another conversation, between Pilate and the high priest Caiaphas. Here, the
Procurator tries to convince Caiaphas to let Yeshua free but he refuses. The second
chapter, “The Execution" describes the crucifixion of Yeshua and two other victims. It
also tells the story about Matthew (the only follower of Yeshua/Jesus in Bulgakov's
version of the story of the New Testament), who tried to kill Yeshua on his way to Golgotha. Matthew’s intension was to shorten his suffering but he failed. The third chapter,
"How the Procurator Tried to Save Judas", contains a report on the execution from the
chief of the secret service. The Procurator gives his orders on how the corps should be
176
A discussion has been going on which genre this novel belongs to. Some mean that it is a kind of
Fantastical and magical realism (see above p 1). Proffer claims that it is a Menippean satire (Proffer 1984,
p 531), while Zerkalov maintains in Evangeliye Mikhaila Bulgakova, 2003, p 143) that it is a philosophic
fantasy (философическая фнтастика). Bulgakov was not interested in the genre discussion at all
(Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove 1988, p 459). But he called it ”a Fantastic Novel” (Фантастический роман) in an early version (Lesskis & Atarova 2007, p 144). Bulgakov's methods of creating
his characters have been compared also to that of Federico Fellini (ibid. p 120); Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove 1988, p 426).
177
Некоторые мои доброжелатели избрали довольно странный способ утешать меня. Я не раз
слышал уже подозрительно елейные голоса: "Ничего, после вашей смерти все будет напечатано"
(Pis'ma, p 388).
93
buried. He and the chief of the secret service make a plan about the ultimate fate of Judas. In the fourth and the last one of Jerusalem chapters, “The Burial”, it is told how
Pilate's men bury all three bodies of the executed men. The guards arrest Matthew who
is trying to bury Yeshua's body separately and take him to Pilate's palace where he is
offered a well-paid position as a librarian. Matthew refuses and accepts just a piece of
parchment. Pilate accuses him of not understanding Yeshua's philosophy. Thus Pilate
turns out to understand Yeshua' message – in contrast to the ignorant Matthew.
The Master and Margarita is generally regarded as Bulgakov's testament as author.178 In my opinion, this is particularly true regarding "The Pilate Novel". The reason
for this is that it can be assumed that he, at the end of his life, summarized his view of
the human condition (see below p XXV). The most important aim of this chapter is
therefore to investigate how the author describes and evaluates the behavior of the characters of the story told in "The Pilate Novel".
In the first part of the chapter, however, I will study how he combines fiction and
facts (defined as information found in more or less contemporary sources) in "The Jerusalem chapters". The reason for this is that this question has been the object of more
than one previous study. In the second part of the chapter I will then address the question of how Bulgakov judges the moral qualities of the characters and how he distributes his blame and praise when interpreting what happened in Jerusalem in connection
with the last day of his more or less fictional character named Yeshua.
The relations between fiction and facts in “The Pilate Novel”
Previous studies of the historical elements
The interest in the historical elements of “The Pilate Novel” was aroused by A. Zerkalov in the Soviet Union in the late 1970-ies and in the USA by G. Elbaum in the early
1980-ies (without having any contact with one another). Other scholars have accepted
their results with some reservations.
Zerkalov’s study, entitled Evangelie Mikhaila Bulgakova, was originally circulated
in samizdat in the Soviet Union in 1979.179 In 1984 the same text was reprinted in a publication from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA. In 2003, Zerkalov published a somewhat revised edition in Moscow (references in the following are made to
this last edition). After having analysed (what Zerkalov regarded as) the writer’s historical sources he claimed that Bulgakov should be seen as "scrupulous historian" (Zerkalov 2003, p 184). The description of clothes in Bulgakov’s text are explicitly said to be
archeologically correct (Zerkalov 2003, p 148). Due to his historical and psychological
approach Bulgakov had written a Gospel more plausible than the Biblical one. This is
main thesis of Zerkalov (cf. the title of his study). He finally maintains, however, that
Bulgakov’s novel is a text not only inspired by the Bible but also to be seen as a work of
“philosophical fiction” (ibid. p 143).180
In the early 1980-ies there was apparently a vivid interest in Bulgakov at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and particularly in “The Pilate Novel”. A Master
Thesis was written in 1980 by G. Elbaum entitled Analiz iudeyskikh glav Mastera i
178
See I. Vinogradov, “Zaveshchanie Mastera”, in Voprosy Litteratury, 1968, no.6, pp 43-81.
According to Proffer 1984, p 540 with note 20.
180
Философическая фантастика means letterary philosophical fantasy but as well as sciense fiction
means in this case also fiction.
179
94
Margarity M. Bulgakova and published there in 1981. Elbaum tried to identify Bulgakov’s historical sources in a very scrupulous way, without knowing about Zerkalov’s
study, published at that time only in samizdat in the Soviet Union in 1979. Elbaum’s
main statement is that Bulgakov’s description in the Jerusalem chapters is historically
correct. He also holds that the impressive historical exactness of “The Pilate Novel”,
together with the artistic qualities of the entire novel, facilitated, in a decisive way, the
Soviet publication of The Master and Margarita in 1966/67 – after more than 25 years
of oblivion (Elbaum 1981, p 125).
The third important contribution to the discussion of the historical background of
“The Pilate Novel” is found in E. Proffers magnum opus, entitled Bulgakov: Life and
Work, published in Ann Arbor in 1984. Proffer disagrees with Zerkalov "on a number of
key issues" but has "used his research to support many of [her] own points". In her
view, Elbaum "covers much of the same historical material which Zerkalov analyzes
and provides even more detail on some of the basic historical texts" (see Profffer 1984,
p 540 with note 20). Every description in Bulgakov’s text has, according to her, “a literary reference - either historical or legendary” (ibid. p 541). She gives some examples of
what she regards as demonstrating “historical accuracy” (ibid. pp 542sqq). Proffer reminds the reader that Mikhail Bulgakov was a scholar like his father (professor of theology in Kiev) and that he had made substantial research before writing “The Pilate
Novel” (ibid. p 540). According to her, Bulgakov “wishes the reader to believe that his
narrative is more likely, more convincing, and better written than the Gospels” (ibid.).
In the early 1980-ies, two other American scholars, B. Beatle and P. Powell (1981),
had also stated that “Bulgakov has set his scene with careful attention to archaeological
evidence” in his description of ancient Jerusalem.181 Their view seems to have been
elaborated without any knowledge about Elbaum’s work at Ann Arbour.
Some years later A. Barratt (1987) also accepted the views of Zerkalov and Elbaum
in principle, though he finds that their ideas are somewhat speculative.182 Barratt regards
Pilate’s dream described in the novel as “the teleological key” of the novel. When he
states this, he refers to Zerkalov in a note, but, in fact, Zerkalov talks about “the theological key” which is quite another thing.183
Few years later, R.H. Pittman (1991) maintains that Zerkalov’s and Elbaum’s works
had clarified the question of the sources in “The Pilate Novel” and that there is nothing
to be added to their points of view.184 A little more than a decade later (2004), two
scholars in Estonia, I. Belobrovtseva and S. Kulyus, published a comprehensive commentary on The Master and Margarita. Here, they did not mention the previous discussion on Bulgakov’s historical accuracy.185
In short, there was in the 1980-ies and still is an opinio communis about how to
regard the historical elements in Bulgakov’s “The Pilate Novel”. There is, however, one
exception from this rule. In an article from the late 1990ies (published in Tallinn) S.
Bobrov (1998), claims that the ancient Jerusalem described by Bulgakov is not a de181
In “Bulgakov, Dante and Relativity”, in Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15, p 259.
A. Barratt, Between Two Worlds: a Critical Introduction to The Master and Margarita, Oxford 1987,
p 188.
183
Ibid. p 218. It is unclear whether Barratt has made a mistake in reading Zerkalov’s term ”teologihcesky” or if he has interpreted the same term as meaning ”teleological”.
184
R.H. Pittman, The Writer’s Divided Self in Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita, Oxford & London
1991.
185
I. Belobrovtseva, & S. Kulyus, Roman Mikhaila Bulgakova ”Master i Margarita”: Opyt kommentariya, Tallinn 2004.
182
95
scription of Jerusalem at all. In his opinion Bulgakov has, in reality, described his contemporary Moscow.186 Bobrov presents a number of arguments for his idea, which defies the general consensus among the scholars. First he maintains that the Temple in
Jerusalem in reality had a flat roof of cedar. So the golden roof mentioned in Bulgakov’s novel was not that of the Temple in Jerusalem but probably that of a certain cathedral in Moscow, Pokrovsky sobor. He refers here to the ancient writer Josephus Flavius but he must have misunderstood him as Flavius in fact describes the roof of the
Temple just as “being covered on all sides with massive plates of gold”.187
As another argument Bobrov refers to the bread which Matthew points at in the
bakery when he steels the knife that he intends to use in order to shorten Yeshua’s sufferings. The bread is called “karavai” in the novel and Bobrov pretends that such bread
was baked on rye flour. According to him this fact confirms that Bulgakov describes
bread and bakery in Moscow and not in Jerusalem. The next argument is associated
with Bulgakov’s mentioning of the menorah on the top of the roof of the Temple. The
menorah has normally seven branches but in the novel they are only five. Bobrov believes that Bulgakov here implicitly refers to the well-known red pentagonal (fivepointed) stars over the Kremlin. But, as Zerkalov had already demonstrated, Bulgakov
borrowed the idea of the five-pointed menorah from the Russian translation of F.W.
Farrar’s book The Life of Christ from 1887 (see Zerkalov 2003, p 184).
Summing up these arguments, Bobrov maintains that Bulgakov has created “a red
Judea” in “The Pilate Novel” (Bobrov 1998, p 54). Bobrov’s ideas are all but convincing. However, he is right in one sense. The general consensus among the scholars since
the early 1980-ies about the historical elements in the Jerusalem chapters is by no
means irrefutable.
In the following it is therefore my intention to reinitiate the discussion of the historical elements in “The Pilate Novel” and to introduce some critical arguments about the
conclusions of Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer as well as to question the general acceptance of their views. The main objective is to expose the ideas about Bulgakov’s
“historical accuracy” to a critical review and to illustrate how he – as the writer of a
novel – instead mixes some factual elements with pure fiction.
Methodology
In the study of the historical elements in "The Pilate novel" I am going to analyze a
number of cases where I can show how historical material and pure fiction are mixed
up. The analysis is focused on four main questions. 1/ The use of fiction in his story making: some general observations 2/ Some concrete examples how Bulgakov combines
historical material with pure fiction 3/ a critical review of some arguments intended to
show Bulgakov's "historical accuracy", used by Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer 4/ Some
selected historical elements in Bulgakov’s text exposed to a critical trial.
The difference between historical elements and pure fiction is obvious. It is well
known that Bulgakov has borrowed the historical elements of his novel mainly from the
Gospels together with some ancient writers (Josephus Flavius, Philo of Alexandria,
Tacite, Sueton) but he has also borrowed such elements from some medieval texts as for
186
S. Bobrov, ”Master i Margarita: Ersalaim i/ili Moskva?”, in Bulgakovsky Sbornik iii, Tallinn 1998, pp
3-56.
187
In Istoria Ioudaikou polemou pros Romaios, V, 5, 6 (p 269 in the English translation of the Loeb
edition).
96
instance a poem by Peter Pictor (Proffer 1984, p 550). It is also well known that he was
fairly well acquainted with the different schools of Christology in the 19th and the early
20th centuries.188 His own position in this discourse was somewhere in the middle between the traditional school (believing in the divine character of Christ) and the socalled mythological school (denying the historical existence of Christ). He thus regards
the historical model of his hero as having existed in reality but without having any supernatural character.
It should here be noticed that Zerkalov has used a remarkable method in his analysis of Bulgakov’s text. He claimed that the reader's understanding of the sources is a
condition for the correct interpretation of “The Pilate Novel”. Therefore, he divides the
readers of "The Jerusalem Chapters" in five groups depending on their knowledge of the
Bible and other sources (Zerkalov 2003, pp 140sq). Only the fifth group of readers (researchers as himself) may come to a really deep understanding of the text. Zerkalov
therefore calls his study a “detective work” searching in a maze. He is looking for a
number of ”marks” (metki), which Bulgakov – in the view of Zerkalov – had left for
those initiated. Therefore Zerkalov reveals what is hidden under the ”marks” and believes that it makes it possible for him to explain the deeper message of the author. I am
not going to comment this remarkable approach to the interpretation of the text.
Analysis
Some general observations
Describing Yeshua’s fate, Bulgakov follows the story told by the Gospels in the two
first chapters of “The Pilate Novel” fairly closely. As demonstrated by several scholars
(such as Barratt and Pruitt), he thereby often prefers the version of John. The Gospels
can therefore here be seen as a substratum of his own text. He has, though, eliminated
all instances of deep religious meaning of the Gospels (for instance the description of
the Holy Communion). In the last two chapters of “The Pilate Novel” Bulgakov’s story
deviates significantly from the Biblical texts. Most of the description of the crucifixion,
the burial of the executed and the death of Judas is based on the author’s own fantasy.
Some concrete examples how Bulgakov combines historical material with pure fiction
It is evident that Bulgakov constructed his story by mixing historical material with his
own fantasy. Some concrete examples will be enough to demonstrate this. The interview between Pilate and Yeshua is a first one. This interview is not mentioned at all by
Marc, Matthew or Luce but, shortly, by John (18:28sqq). When the procurator first enters the scene, he is dressed ”in a white cloak lined with blood-red” (в белом плаще с
кровавым подбоем, Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 19). He walks “shuffling as a cavalryman” (шаркающей кавалерийской походкой, ibid.) into the arcade connecting the
two wings of the palace of Herod the Great. John includes none of these details. It is
only said that Pilate went out of the residence to listen to the priests’ accusations and
that he then returned into the residence. The identification of his residence with the pal-
188
Curtis, Bulgakov’s last decade, 1987, pp 151sq.
97
ace of Herode is a much-debated problem in scholarly literature.189 Here Bulgakov has
freely combined loans from the Bible with his own fantasy.
The conversation between Pilate and Caiaphas can be mentioned as a second example of how Bulgakov mixes facts with fiction. In John it is a Jewish crowd, which
claims that Jesus has committed a crimen laesae maiestatis and that Pilate cannot be a
friend of the emperor if he lets him free (19:12). In Bulgakov’s version it is Caiaphas
who discusses this topic. The structure and content of the conversation is mostly based
on pure fantasy. But the words of Caiaphas in Bulgakov’s text are, however, echoing
from the second argument of the Gospels, i.e. that he cannot be the friend of the emperor if he lets Yeshua free.
In “The Pilate Novel” there is no description of the Last Supper. Instead, Judas and
Yeshua have dinner for themselves. This is of course pure fantasy. But, as Zerkalov has
shown, Judas lit a lamp according to the Jewish law, which was required if a trap was to
be illuminated. It was done to be sure that a witness would be able to identify the right
wrongdoer. Here Bulgakov has taken a historical detail from the Torah (Zerkalov 2003,
pp 87sq). Again, he mixes a factual detail with pure fantasy.
Even Yeshua’s way to Golgotha is Bulgakov’s own invention. He certainly does
not mention any “Via Dolorosa”, which is an expression invented by the crusaders.190
Nor does he mention the man from Cyrenia helping to carry the cross (as in Matthew
27:32 and Marc 15:21). Instead the three men sentenced to death were taken to Golgotha in a cart. Bulgakov here seems to have been thinking of the uses of later times when
people sentenced to death were transported to the place of execution in a hangman’s
cart. The word “cross” is avoided in “The Pilate Novel”. Bulgakov instead writes the
“freshly sawn posts and cross-pieces” or in Russian: свежеотесанными столбами с
перекладинами (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 168) that are transported in the cart together with ropes, spades, buckets and axes.
The description of the main characters of the story is also very different from that
of the Gospels. First it should be noted that there are no groups of actors in Bulgakov’s
text, as in the Gospels,191 but only interventions made by people that behave as individuals. He does not either overtake the portrayal of the personalities from the Bible. The
characters of Yeshua, Pilate, Matthew, Judas and Caiaphas are all his own creations.
This observation will turn out to be important when dealing with the question of how
Bulgakov evaluates the behavior of his characters. He has also introduced new figures
needed for his plot like Afranius, Krysoboy and Niza.
The description of Pilate’s character is illustrative for Bulgakov’s way of combining historical facts with his own fantasy. The author makes him a brave and intelligent
man. He is good-hearted as well; he had saved the centurion Krysoboy's life in Germania during a battle. The reader can therefore hardly believe Pilate when he calls himself
a “raving monster” (свирепое чудовище – Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 21). Bulgakov’s fiction here focuses the reader’s attention on the moral side of the character and
not on the typical features of a Roman governor. Here history ends and fiction begins.
The character of Yeshua offers another example. He is quite different from that of
Jesus in the Gospels. As many scholars have already claimed, Bulgakov’s intention is to
189
See for instance H. Daniel-Rops, La vie quotidienne en Palestine au temps de Jésus, 1945, p 92 and p
115.
190
D. Bahat, The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, 1990, p 56.
191
Except the occurrence of numerous military troops, the existence of which is a result of his own invention.
98
show that Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood. In his version Yeshua and Pilate stand on the same intellectual level and they initiate a conversation that will go on
forever. They talk in Aramaic, Greek and Latin (on the question of language see below
pp XXVI). Thus, Bulgakov makes a simple artisan into an educated man though he is,
at the same time, presented as a bastard and a vagabond.192 All this fits perfectly well
into the story, where an eternal relationship between the two men is taking shape.
During Yeshua's execution there are no women present in "The Pilate Novel".193 In
the Gospels, Jesus’ mother, her sister Maria and Maria of Magdala were standing by
Jesus’ cross. The women that are mentioned in the Gospels have thus disappeared in
“The Pilate Novel”. Bulgakov’s Yeshua is very lonely and followed only by Matthew,
a man who completely misunderstood his message.194 The whole story of the execution
is Bulgakov’s own and reminds very little of that of the Bible.
A final example of how the author combines historical material with his own fantasy is the introduction of new figures into the story. The most important one of those is
Afranius, who is Bulgakov's own invention and presented as the chief of the secret service. A secret service as we know it to day or as it was in Stalin’s Moscow did not exist
in Rome at that time. Only in the late empire there were some special officers (called
agentes in rebus) who might be seen as a kind of secret servicemen.
Some arguments used by Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer exposed to criticism
Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer seem to have underestimated the role of fiction in “The
Pilate Novel”. Their main thesis is that Bulgakov should be considered a serious historian. But they do not discuss at all the reliability of the sources that he used. If he, for
instance, takes a detail from Josephus Flavius, they regard this detail as “historically
correct”. A modern historian would not agree at all.
A few examples will show the way Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer argue when they
mention the historical correctness of Bulgakov in “The Pilate Novel”. The first example
is related to the clothing of Pilate. When the author presents his hero, he is – as was said
above – dressed “in white cloak lined with blood-red” (Sobranie sochinenii, vol.5, p
19). Zerkalov states that the description of his clothes is “archaeologically” precise.195
However, the Romans did not have clothes colored in this way, particularly not with a
red lining. The coloring of Pilate's dress thus does not fit into the Roman symbolic conventions of the coloring of their dresses. It is remarkable that Zerkalov also presents his
own symbolic interpretation of the blood-red lining. He claims that this colour is indicating that Pilate was cruel and ”bloodthirsty” (Zerkalov 2003, p 145). If it is so, then
the lining was invented by the author on purpose and has therefore nothing to do with
Roman traditions, as we know them to day. Zerkalov, in fact, contradicts himself when
he comments the symbolic nature of the blood-red colour of Pilate's clothes.
Elbaum identifies Pilate’s dress with a trabea (Elbaum 1981, p 58). A trabea was a
short cloak with narrow transversal red stripes on its outside. A cloak with a red lining
192
Zerkalov refers to the concept of an asufi, an ancient Hebraic word signifying a man of the lowest
social status, just a little bit higher than that of a slave (see Zerkalov 2003, p 113).
193
Cf. Lesskis & Atarova 2007, p 139.
194
In "The Pilate Novel" Matthew interprets Yeshua's message completely wrong. He still thinks of a God
as a personification of superpower that can decide, kill and save. However, during Yeshua's execution he
curses God for not helpingYeshua and, afterwords, he does not believe in him any longer.
195
точны археологически (Zerkalov 2003, p 148).
99
on its inside did not exist in Roman times. Bulgakov is thus using his own fantasy when
he describes Pilate’s clothes.
The second example is associated with the military status of Pilate. Both Zerkalov
and Elbaum have pointed to the fact that Bulgakov had good knowledge of the Roman
army. This is not unexpected as he was interested in the military organisation (general
Suvorov’s bust was standing on his desk).196 However, when Bulgakov made Pilate into
a cavalry officer he is all but historically reliable. It is quite true that Pilate belonged to
ordo equester. But this indicated at this time a social class, the next highest class in
Rome and had nothing to do with a person’s military function.197 Elbaum also takes
Bulgakov’s use of the word hegemon as a piece of evidence for Pilate’s military status
claiming that this Greek word means tribunus equitum or “cavalry officer” (Elbaum
1981, p 58). This is quite true but the Greek word hegemon also means procurator in
Latin.
According to Elbaum, Pilate characterizes Yeshua as a rebel (разбойник). Elbaum
holds that Bulgakov uses this word in the same meaning as Flavius uses the Greek word
ληστής (Elbaum 1981, p 32).198 The three men (four with Barabbas) who were accused
should not be seen as just bandits. According to Elbaum, they were all (even Yeshua)
Jewish patriots fighting against the Romans (ibid. p 33). That is why Pilate sentenced
Yeshua to death. This interpretation seems to be a mere speculation by Elbaum. In any
case, his opinion is by no means an evidence of Bulgakov’s historical correctness.
The next case is constituted by the fact that Bulgakov uses the expression “Sanhedrin” (συνέδριον in Greek) and “Lesser Sanhedrin”. In his description of the juridical
process he does not make any distinction between the two councils. Elbaum has described the difference between them correctly: The first one, mentioned in the Gospels,
consisted of 71 members and the second one, mentioned only in Mishna (Sanh. I.6), of
23 members. The Lesser Sanhedrin was dealing only with minor matters (Elbaum 1981,
p 89). All this is true but Elbaum does not discuss the basic question whether the Lesser
Sanhedrin existed or not in the time of Pilate.199 Nor does he explain why Bulgakov
chose to introduce the Lesser Sanhedrin in some of his expressions.200
The description of Pilate's interview with Caiaphas has been taken by Proffer as an
example of how Bulgakov used ancient authors (together with studies of scholars such
as E. Renan, F.W. Farrar) when he builds his sceneries (Proffer 1984, p 542). She takes
the view that Bulgakov has described the long-lasting conflict between the Romans and
the Jews (mirrored in the conversation between Pilate and Caiaphas) on the historical
basis offered by Josephus Flavius and Tacite: he has also taken some details illustrating
this conflict from the works of Philo of Alexandria. All this is true but it says nothing
about Bulgakov’s historical accuracy or correctness. It only shows that he has taken
some details (more or less reliable) from ancient writers and then created his own story.
When describing the execution of Yeshua Bulgakov places Golgotha at a certain
distance from the city wall, possibly in order to make room for the movement of the
numerous troops he lets Pilate make use of (John 19:19 states that Golgotha was located
“just outside of the city”). Of course, he does so as a fiction writer, not as a scholar.
196
According to Proffer 1984, p 239.
Bulgakov tells of Pilatus as brave cavalry officer in Germaniia (Sobranie sochinenii, vol 5, p 33; Glenny, p 33).
198
The word "ληστής" means normally "robber" in ancient Greek.
199
See the word ”Sanhedrin” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol 5.
200
See my Licentiate thesis, where I also discuss the results of Elbaum , Zerkalov and Proffer in detail.
197
100
Zerkalov also shows that Bulgakov deviates from the Gospels's way of describing
the execution in Golgotha (Zerkalov 2003, p 149). In his version the three men were
bound to the cross by ropes and not nailed as in the Gospels. Zerkalov refers to Talmud
as his evidence for the historical background of this procedure (Zerkalov 2003, p 150).
Even Proffer takes the view that “Bulgakov gives a much more historically accurate
picture of what a crucifixion was like than the Gospels” (Proffer 1984, pp 545sq). It is
certainly true that also this method was used in Roman times. Still it does not prove that
Bulgakov was more “historically correct” than the Gospels but only that he was well
acquainted with various ancient procedures of crucifixion.
Concerning the description of Jerusalem’s topography, Elbaum maintains that Bulgakov depicts the topography of Jerusalem in a perfect way, though the author had never visited the city. Elbaum adds a somewhat naïve remark that even if Bulgakov had
visited Jerusalem it would not have changed anything, as the city had been completely
demolished by Titus in 70 A.D. (Elbaum 1981, p 92). Elbaum admits, however, that
Bulgakov sometimes errs (ibid. p 96), for instance when he lets Yeshua go out through
the Hebron/Jaffa gate. It did not exist at Jesus’ time (ibid. p 102). It is easy to add some
other errors made by Bulgakov. In his description of the palace of Herod, he mentions
some golden blind statues and a white statue of a naked woman (Sobranie sochinenii,
vol.5, p 290; Glenny, p 316). Here he makes a simple but common mistake. In ancient
times the eyes of the statues, as a rule, had a marked iris and the torso was often partly
painted. These details, though being of minor importance, are hardly examples of Bulgakov’s archaeological or historical correctness.
My exemplification shows that Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer have made a number
of unfounded statements regarding Bulgakov’s historical accuracy. Particularly Elbaum
and Zerkalov have overestimated his training as a professional historian and – at the
same time – disregarded that he had no intention or reason to bother about historical
correctness. In order to check this conclusion, two historical issues treated by Bulgakov
in "The Pilate Novel" will be exposed to a critical trial.
Two selected historical elements in Bulgakov’s text exposed to trial
In Bulgakov’s description of Pilate’s interview with Yeshua they both speak Aramaic in
the beginning. Then Pilate asks his prisoner if he also masters Greek. He does. They
switch to Greek. After a while the procurator wonders if Yeshua even speaks Latin.
When he got a positive answer, they talk in Latin for a while.
In the first century A.D. Aramaic was the normal spoken language in Palestine.
Hebrew was mostly a written language. Sometimes it was used orally but only for religious purposes.201 It is probable that the historical Jesus, who usually spoke Aramaic,
could speak and write Hebrew. As Greek was a common language in ancient Palestine it
is possible but not certain that Jesus also had some knowledge of Greek (Daniel-Rops
1945, p 327). It is much more probable that Pilate could speak and write Greek, as it
was required of a Roman administrator in this part of the Roman Empire. On the other
hand, it is hardly possible that he mastered Aramaic or wanted to speak this language
(ibid.). It also is very improbable that Jesus could or wanted to use Latin, the language
of the oppressors. Hardly anybody in Palestine can be assumed to have studied Latin if
not forced to it by his position. Thus, in reality the historical conversation between Jesus
and Pilate must reasonably have been in Greek, which was the lingua franca in the
201
Daniel-Rops 1945, pp 323sqq.
101
Eastern part of the Roman Empire. Another possibility is that the conversation was interpreted but such a fact is not mentioned in the Gospels. The use of an interpreter is
mostly regarded as improbable (ibid.).
Bulgakov’s description of the use of languages during the conversation between
Pilate and Yeshua is therefore a result of his own fantasy. He has created a scene, which
is quite improbable in the historical situation described. Obviously it was not important
for him to be historically correct at all when he dealt with the question of the use of languages. Again he is creating his own fictitious story.202
The second issue to be treated here is Bulgakov’s description of the use of parchment. This material is mentioned several times in “The Pilate Novel”. Pilate's secretary
first hands over a piece of parchment to him, then another one. Both are accusing Yeshua of various actions. Furthermore, it is mentioned that his secretary makes notes on a
piece of parchment during the questioning. Matthew in his turn is said to be writing on a
piece of parchment with ink and a stylus, when he follows his master Yeshua. Finally,
Matthew receives some parchment as a present from Pilate (who also mentions that he
has papyrus scrolls in his library).
Bulgakov seems to consider parchment to be common material for writing in Palestine in the time of Jesus. Parchment became, however, the common material much
later in Roman antiquity. In any case, it is very unlikely that the secretary was writing
down his minutes on a piece of parchment. In ancient times tabulae ceratae (waxtablets) were used in such a situation.203 It is well known that skilful secretaries could
use a system of abbreviations, which had been developed by Cicero’s learned slave Tiro. It also is quite absurd that Matthew is said by Bulgakov to be writing down his notes
on a piece of parchment by means of ink and a stylus during the crucifixion. Such a way
of writing would have required completely different conditions. The use of tabulae
ceratae would have been normal also in a situation like this. Later, the scribe would
have been able to make a fair copy of the notes probably on papyrus or possibly on
parchment. On the other hand, the indictments against Yeshua handed over to Pilate
could have been written on pieces of parchment. There were enough of raw material to
produce parchment in Palestine as even poor people were consuming goats and lambs
(Daniel-Rops 1945, p 246). But they could equally well have been written on papyrus,
which – after all – was the usual material for writing in those times.
Thus, the use of parchment in “The Pilate Novel” is not in accordance with what
we know today about the use of different materials for writing in Roman antiquity.
Conclusions of the first analysis
It is now possible to draw a number of conclusions from the arguments presented above.
The first conclusion is the fact that pure fiction plays a much more important role in
202
There is another instance of mixed use of languages. When Yeshua and the other two were on their
way to Golgotha, boards were hanging around their necks with a text written in Aramaic and Greek
meaning ”Robber and Rebel”. Bulgakov usually follows John when he describes the story of Yeshua. But
in this case he deviates concerning the use of the languages and the content of the inscription. According
to John, three languages were used on the board attached above the head of Jesus at the cross: Hebrew,
Latin and Greek. In Latin the text run “Iesus Nazarenus, Rex Iudaeorum” (John 19, 20). Here Bulgakov is
probably closer to historical circumstances than John as the inscriptions were meant to address – not to
the learned who could read Hebrew or to the rulers who new Latin – but to the crowd that could Aramaic
and sometimes Greek. This is an example of Bulgakov’s consistent inconsistency. He uses just what suits
his purpose.
203
An ancient picture illustrates the scenery of two secretaries writing on their wax-tablets during a process (see Dictionnaire d’archeologie chrétienne et de liturgie, vol. xii: 2, Paris 1935. col. 1625sq).
102
“The Pilate Novel” than scholars have taken for granted. Bulgakov tells his own story.
He is not trying to produce a text, which that can be called “Bulgakov’s own Gospel”
(Zerkalov). Nor has he written an “antigospel” (Proffer 1984, p 541). He has written a
story of his own but has based it to some extent on the Gospels (mostly John) as a substratum. It is evident in the first two chapters, but this substratum is fading away in the
third chapter and disappears in the fourth one.
The second conclusion goes on the circumstance that Bulgakov combines elements
taken from the Gospels or from other ancient texts with products of his own fantasy.
Such is the case when he describes Pilate’s interview with Yeshua. Bulgakov makes this
interview, mentioned very briefly by John (19.13), into a long passage of his story, the
most part of which is fiction. Other examples of how the author mixes historical material with his own fantasy is found in the descriptions of Pilate’s conversation with Caiaphas, of Judas’ dinner with Yeshua and of his execution. Bulgakov also makes the main
actors of the story (Pilate, Yeshua, Caiaphas and Judas) to his own literary characters by
means of his own fantasy. These actors are described as living personalities full of feelings, hate and love, fanaticism and fear. He introduces some new characters as well (Afranius, Krysoboy and Niza). Their presence is necessary for his plot. Finally he always
focuses on individuals, where the Gospels focus on groups of individuals (priests, Jewish people, women).
The third conclusion is based on a critical review of the arguments presented by
Zerkalov, Elbaum and Proffer concerning Bulgakov’s alleged historical accuracy. Some
of these arguments are unfounded statements concerning ancient matters, for instance
pure mistakes about Roman clothing. There is some example of insufficient analysis of
the ancient background (the discussion of Sanhedrin and Lesser Sanhedrin). Sometimes
the scholars have presented mere speculations, for instance when Elbaum maintains that
the four men sentenced to death were zealots. Finally it should be added that the same
scholars never expose the reliability of ancient sources to a critical discussion. The ancient texts that Bulgakov actually used may be regarded as his sources of inspiration
rather than sources of a high degree of credibility.
The fourth conclusion is based on a critical study of how familiar Bulgakov was
with the use of languages and of parchment in Palestine in the time of Pilate. He makes
Yeshua speak Latin that is very improbable (Latin was the language of the oppressors)
and makes Pilate speak Aramaic that is still more improbable (Aramaic was the local
language of the conquered provincials). Regarding the use of parchment Bulgakov describes situations where the use of this material is next to unthinkable in Roman times.
It is evident that he had remarkable knowledge of ancient matters but he was far from
familiar with the details.
Thus, Bulgakov never tried to become a serious historian. In a letter to his friend
Popov from 13 April,1933 he explicitly wrote: "I am not a historian".204 This is true
both in regard to “the Pilate Novel” as to The White Guard, his great historical novel. In
“the Pilate Novel” he is blending historical material with such elements of fantasy that
fit his story making and he is leaving out what does not suit him. Bulgakov never had
any intention to produce a historically correct description of the most dramatic day in
204
… я не историк… (Pis'ma, p 255). Curtis has expressed a view that reminds of the one argued by me:
"Bulgakov offers the reader in the Master's novel a version of the Gospels which in irrational – that is,
fictional – terms is demonstrated to be some absolute, truly 'authorised' version […]. The Master's novel
is not primarily a polemic with the Canon; first and foremost it is an act of justification for the Master as
an artist" (Curtis, Bulgakov's last decade 1987, p 153).
103
the Christian tradition.205 Instead he created his own world, a world of fictitious literature, which for him became more vivid than real life.206 Bulgakov did not strive to make
a more plausible version of the Gospels. His intention was probably another. This intension is the topic of the second section of this chapter.
Moral values in “The Pilate Novel”
Introduction
The question of the shift of time, place, focus and theme from the main part of The Master and Margarita to the Jerusalem chapters can be associated with a more complex
question: what was the author's intention in “The Pilate Novel”? It is motivated to consider the possibility that Bulgakov here wanted to condensate some of his long life experience of the human condition. This tentative interpretation is supported by the fact
that the entire novel The Master and Margarita is – as indicated above (p XXVII) –
generally regarded as the intellectual testament of Mikhail Bulgakov. I also argued that
“The Pilate Novel” can be regarded as an essential part of his intellectual testament.
To move the story in The Master and Margarita for a while from Moscow to Jerusalem in the time of Jesus can be seen as an act of reaching some zone of freedom. Bulgakov was doomed to spend all his life in the Soviet Union. After he had given up his
medical career, he worked as a reporter and a literary writer. It is a well-known fact that
he many times asked for official permission to travel abroad and even to emigrate but he
was never allowed to go. "I wanted to travel all over the world”,207 tells the Master Ivan
in the The Master and Margarita, but the authorities had decided to keep Bulgakov in
the USSR. After 1929 his situation had become worse. All his plays were banned and he
became desperate.208 He was thinking of suicide but after he had married his third wife
in 1932, he started a new life. Still, the latter part of Bulgakov’s life in the Soviet Union
can be described as a kind of “an inner exile”. This interpretation is also found in Literaturnaya entsiklopedia: "Bulgakov shows typical tendencies of 'inner emigration'" (my
translation).209
But why did Bulgakov choose Jerusalem in the time of Jesus as an arena for his
plot? A number of possible explanations can be considered. At the very end of this
chapter, I will return to this issue.
The methodological approach in this part of the chapter is – as in the preceding chapters
– principally based on Stephen Greenblatt´s theoretical idea about the dependence of all
authors on “the systems of signs that constitute a given culture”.210 Any author has,
however, a more or less free choice between alternative themes and expressions that
205
As the Bible was forbidden in the USSR, some people might have read his story as a substitute for the
New Testament, when the book was finally published. Cf. Zerkalov’s idea of five different groups of
readers (Zerkalov 2003, pp 140sq).
206
ibid. pp 186sq.
207
Я […] хотел объехать весь земной шар (Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 147).
208
Milne 1990, pp 171sq.
209
Булгаков типичный выразитнль тенденцей "втутренней эмиграции" (quoted from V. Shentalinsky, Donos na Sokrata, 2001, p 322.)
210
Greenblatt, Renaissance Self-Fashioning, p 4.
104
exist within the culture in question. Of course, Bulgakov's situation as a writer in the
Soviet society did not permit a particularly free choice of themes and expressions.
However, the remoteness in time and place in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus may have
increased his feeling of freedom.
The methodological approach is also grounded on the observation that the structure
of “The Jerusalem Chapters” is very much similar to a drama. The novel reproduces the
well-known three unities of a classical play. There is the unity of time (the story takes
place in one day and one night), the unity of place (the story is performed in Jerusalem
or in its neighborhood) and the unity of action (the story is focused on Pilate’s treating
of Yeshua and his traitor Judas).
The story is based on the development of conflicts between six dramatis personae.
Five of them are well-known figures in the Gospels: Yeshua (the Hebraic form of Jesus), Pilate, Caiaphas, Judas and Matthew.211 The sixth character, Afranius, is Bulgakov's own invention.212 To analyze the conflicts between the six main characters of the
drama it is useful to introduce the analytic concept of “récit”. By this term, I refer to a
theoretical concept meaning a prevalent interpretation of history and the human condition in a certain perspective.213 The difference between and the background behind the
actions and attitudes of the six dramatis personae involved in the conflicts can be clarified by means of three very different récits.
Analysis
The dramatic structure
The dramatic structure of “The Pilate Novel” is above all visible in the dialogues. The
dramatic development in the dialogues is based on conflicts that have both a social and
a personal side. The social side is associated with three different récits. The personal
side of the conflicts has to do with the morals of the actors.
Caiaphas represents the thousands years old Jewish récit about the relations between the Jewish people and their God in the form of a contract. The High Priest is convinced that this récit represents the true interpretation of history. Caiaphas is therefore
defending the old Jewish conviction and, at the same time, contemporary Jewish interests both against the Roman oppression (he is afraid that Pilate will instigate riots in
Jerusalem in order to let his soldiers intervene) and against the threat from Yeshua who
is questioning the traditional Jewish belief. For this reason he must demand Yeshua’s
execution. Judas is willing to cooperate in stopping Yeshua’s preaching. He does so by
means of a treachery. Judas who is both loyal to the Jewish récit and interested in the
possibility of making money accepts – without any moral doubts – his task of exposing
Yeshua to a trap. Yeshua, who is too naïve, falls an easy prey to Judas. Caiaphas, driven
211
The reason why Bulgakov has chosen Matthew among the four evangelists has probably to do with the
fact that he was the only evangelist who had belonged to the Disciples of Christ (if the traditional identification of the evangelist is accepted). A complementary reason could be that Bulgakov was acquainted
with a source (Papias) from around 130 that tells that Matthew had written down the sayings of Jesus.
212
Elbaum claims that Bulgakov has not chosen his name at random but taken it from Tacite’s mentioning of a certain Afranius Burrus, who was in charge of the Pretorian guard under Claudius and Nero (Elbaum 1981, p 80).
213
The concept of "récite" was launched by J-F. Lyotard in La condition postmoderne (Paris 1979),
where he claimed that "les grand récits" were all dead. My use of the concept of "recit" is inspired
by Lyotard but without having any connection to the post-modern ideas he is associated with.
105
by his fanatical zeal, then asks Pilate to sanction Sanhedrin’s death penalty of Yeshua, a
claim based on what he learnt with the help of Judas.
Pilate represents the Roman récit that tells about Rome’s political and military
greatness and historical role. It is also about the Emperor’s power and about the Roman
Empire’s supremacy over other peoples. Pilate is the main representative of the Roman
récit. As a procurator he has to defend Roman interests in the area and to guarantee law
and order in his province. The relation to the Jewish population was problematic and
exposed Pilate to difficult decisions. Confronted with Caiaphas' demand, he is unwilling
at first to agree but when the High Priest threatens to report his refusal to the Emperor,
the procurator fears for his own career. Pilate makes an attempt to rescue Yeshua but in
vain. He gives him a hint that he can tell a lie to save his life but Yeshua is courageous
enough to refuse. He is executed under the supervision of Afranius, who follows his
superior's will without any questioning. Later he organises the murder of Judas. A kind
of Roman justice is done but in an informal way.
Yeshua stands for a completely new récit. He preaches that the temple of the old
belief (in Jerusalem) will fall down and a new temple of truth will arise instead. He
does not see the Jewish récit (based on the Old Testament) as the true interpretation of
human existence. This is a challenge of the high priest Caiaphas. At the same time he is
challenging the idea of Rome by advocating that – one day in the future – all secular
Power will cease to exist. Matthew is his follower who makes notes about the new récit
preached by Yeshua. But his way of doing this is questioned by Yeshua himself. When
he once looked at what was written he was scared. In the text there was nothing of what
he had said. He tells Pilate that he had asked Matthew to burn the parchment but the
man had refused.214.
As all readers already know, Yeshua's récit will become important for Christian
civilization in the future. The Gospel written by the historical Matthew (together with
the Gospels written by the other evangelists) had long-lasting consequences for the suppression of people carried out during the following centuries by a more or less dogmatic
Christian church. Matthew, however, has distorted this récit from its very beginning,
according to Bulgakov.
Summing up these observations it might be reasonable to claim that the dramatic
structure of “The Pilate Novel” is built up in the following way: the Romans and their
dominating récit exposes the Jewish people to violence and the Jewish récit to a certain
threat. Also Yeshua’s new récit implicitly challenges the dominance of the Jewish one,
though Yeshua preaches peace and non-violence. This implicit challenge makes Caiaphas demand the execution of a man that is innocent. The Roman governor, at first, refuses to accept this demand but his final decision to execute Yeshua is partly due to the
fact that the man has questioned the dominance of the Roman idea. Pilate’s final decision is also due to the fact that Caiaphas seriously threatens him. The Jewish high priest
is ready to send a message to the Roman emperor in order to denounce Pilate for not
defending the interests of Rome, if he does not condemn Yeshua to death.
Bulgakov’s description and judgement of the six dramatis personae
214
Cf. Salman Rushdie’s words in The Satanic Verses: ”Salma – the scribe of Mahoud [said] – Mahoud
did not notice the alterations, so there I was, actually writing the Book, or rewriting, anyway polluting the
word of God with my own profane language.” See also the comment of G. Lucas’ in Appendix 1, where
he compares the actions of Matthew, the scribe of Yeshua, with those of Salma, the scribe of Mahoud.
106
It is now my intention to show how Bulgakov describes and judges the six main characters of "the Pilate Novel" (the three main actors, Pilate, Caiaphas and Yeshua and their
attendants Afranius, Judas and Matthew). He seems to be interested in how they all behave in terms of personal moral standard and how they relate to the question of morality. The key term in analysing their moral behaviour is the concept of "responsibility".
Through a study of this kind it will later be possible to draw conclusions about what
traditional ideas and values Bulgakov is vindicating in the text of "The Pilate Novel".
Afranius is portrayed as a man who enjoys the dubious tasks associated with his
service. He seems to be totally obedient to Power. But at the same time he manipulates
his own chief, Pilate, and tells him a lie concerning Yeshua’s last words.215 But first of
all, he is a man who knows to carry out his work very well. Pilate says that he probably
has to do with a man who never makes any mistakes. Bulgakov depicts Afranius as a
handsome man with a shrewd, intelligent face. Afranius illustrates the typical lack of
responsibility demonstrated by certain kinds of subordinate people. They do what they
are ordered to or asked to do. If accused for their actions they refer to their superiors and
refuse to take any responsibility for what they have done.
On the basis of these observations, one can say that – in the portrait of Afranius –
Bulgakov has concentrated his blame of people who are obedient and efficient tools in
the hands of mighty persons. They are characterized by a bottomless amorality. They do
not take any responsibility at all for their actions but refer the responsibility to their superiors. At the same time, Bulgakov is not blind for the positive aspects of Afranius'
character. He does his work very well and he is intelligent and efficient. But still Bulgakov has made him into a man who is a deadly threat to the human values that he tries to
vindicate. Afranius is amoral as an individual and refuses to take responsibility for his
actions as an official person.
The portrait of Judas is also complex. He turns into a subservient instrument ready
to become a disgusting informer. He pretends to be interested in Yeshuas' ideas and
invites him home for dinner. Later, Pilate asks Yeshua sarcastically if Judas has lit a
light during the dinner. As Zerkalov has shown, Judas lit the lamp according to the Jewish law, which required that a trap was to be illuminated in order to be sure that a witness would be able to identify the right man (Zerkalov 2003, pp 87sq). Afterwards, Judas reports to Caiaphas what Yeshua had said during the dinner. Judas is therefore described as completely conscious of what he is doing. At the same time, he makes money
by means of his action. He does not ponder whether his doings are right or wrong.
Still, he is not only a detestable scoundrel in the eyes of Bulgakov. He is a young,
good-looking man who has fallen in love with a Greek woman. He strolls in the streets
of Jerusalem dressed in feast clothes. He is glad and surprised when meeting Niza. Judas also showed his loyalty to the Jewish récit that is threatened by Yeshua. But Bulgakov evidently blames his actions without any mercy, as he does not offer Judas the possibility of repenting his crime as was offered him in the Bible. The fate of Judas also
illustrates the fact that a traitor may be betrayed himself. In "The Pilate Novel" Judas is
allured into a trap by an attractive woman and there murdered by Afranius' men. In Bulgakov's version of the story, Judas is immoral as an individual but not amoral as Afranius but he does not seem to care about his responsibility in relation to other human
beings.
In the description of Matthew, Bulgakov shows, first of all, an elitist disdain of
people who are less talented. Matthew's lack of intelligence and judgment is illustrated,
215
Cf. Proffer 1984, pp 546sqq.
107
when he writes down the words of Yeshua in an incorrect way thereby acting as an incompetent interpreter of Yeshua's message. Yeshua is afraid that this misunderstanding
will last for a very long time. At the same time, Matthew shows a kind of responsibility
and courage when he tries to protect his master from a long suffering at Golgotha but he
does not succeed. Probably, he also regards himself as a responsible human being in
preserving the words of his master in written form. Matthew is a tragic figure, a man
who never manages to do what he aims at. It is Pilate, not Matthew, who kills Judas as
an act of vengeance. Matthew is thus depicted as completely powerless in his contemporary society but – ironically – any reader who is familiar with the history of the
Christian Church knows that he will become influential in the future through his preservation and interpretation of Yeshua's words (given the presumption that the Matthew,
the Disciple of Christ, is identical with the author of the same name).
It is possible to conclude that Bulgakov respects Matthew's outstanding loyalty towards Yeshua and his will to take responsibility in his attempt to shorten the sufferings
of his Master. On the other hand, Matthew is blamed for his ignorance, for his fanatic
religiousness and particularly for distorting the ideas of Yeshua that will have serious
negative consequences in the future. For these consequences Matthew is responsible but
he is too brainless to understand what he is doing. Therefore, in the eyes of Bulgakov,
people of his kind are dangerous, though they cannot be blamed for their morals. But
they are incapable of taking the responsibility of their actions.
Pilate is the main character of the novel. His personality is depicted as more complicated than that of the other five. He is a Roman governor, who has to perform his
duties in a troublesome province. He had earlier been an officer who took care of his
subordinates. In Bulgakov's version, he is as a lonely person as Yeshua (cf. Lesskis &
Atarova 2007, p 139). He has just his dog and nobody else he can trust.216 The man is
suffering physically (of migraine) as well as mentally. Pilate calls himself a “raving
monster”. In the novel (as in the Gospels) he is exposed to a very difficult decision, a
true existential choice. He is aware of the fact that he has a moral responsibility to save
Yeshua. But when it becomes clear that – doing so – he might loose his position and
possibly his own life, he sentences Yeshua to death. Exposed to this existential situation
of choice Pilate went through a process of anxiety. Afterwards he must confess that he
has acted as a coward. He appears as an intelligent and reflecting man and, therefore, he
is often suffering from his own actions and decisions. He seems to be internally interested in the spiritual dimension of life. He is open for new ideas when he later is confronted with them in his conversation with Yeshua in the very end of the novel.
Does Bulgakov praise Pilate for something? As it appears, he respects the intelligence of the man, his ability to expand beyond his ordinary way of thinking and his
ability to communicate with a person that is far from him in social status and has a different background. Those are the features in the procurator's character that seem to be
attractive in the eyes of Bulgakov. Finally, one may add that the case of Pilate illustrates
the thesis of Yeshua: Man is good by nature but power makes him evil.
The portrait of the high priest Caiaphas is not so schematic as one could expect
though he is described as a fundamentalist. This side of the portrait of Caiaphas illustrates Bulgakov’s critical attitude to all kinds of dogmatism. Being a High Priest he is a
representative of local power in Jerusalem based on traditional Jewish religious belief.
Bulgakov does not criticize this attitude as such, while Caiaphas’s fanatic attitude is for
216
Referring to an old legend, Bulgakov also described Pilate as the son of an astrologer-king (see Proffer
1984, p 550).
108
him an unacceptable form of faith. Caiaphas represents, however, also a case of responsibility. His foremost preoccupation is to protect Jewish religious tradition against nonconformists such as Yeshua. At the same time, he also has the responsibility to protect
Jewish interests against the Roman oppressors. What Bulgakov blames is that Caiaphas
never ponders what his responsibility really means. He seems to have never been exposed to an existential dilemma. The conversation between Pilate and Caiaphas is, however, a duel between two intelligent men of power. When Pilate argues that Barrabas is
more dangerous than Yeshua, Caiaphas replies that a philosopher like Yeshua is much
more treacherous than Barabbas.
Referring to these observations I think it is possible to stress Bulgakov's negative
view of Caiaphas's fundamentalism, fanaticism and dogmatism. At the same time, he is
fully aware of Caiaphas's readiness and courage in taking his responsibility in relation
both to the traditional Jewish récit and to the Jewish people in their struggle against the
Romans. But still, he blames the stubbornness and lack of reflection of Caiaphas. In
fact, the man is criticized for his extreme morality.
Yeshua is presented as a good, kind, and well-educated person. Pilate asks him if he
has studied Greek philosophy. Yeshua replies that he has but that his preaching is based
on his own thinking. Bulgakov thus makes the simple artisan of the Gospels into an
educated man though he is, at the same time, presented as a vagabond. All this fits perfectly well into Bulgakov’s story about Pilate, where an eternal relationship between the
two is taking shape. Two counterparts and equally lonely individuals, a bastard and
vagabond on the one hand and a high Roman official and (according to Bulgakov) a son
of a king on the other, become friends forever. A true friendship was very important in
the eyes of Bulgakov.
Yeshua advocates the idea that Man is good by nature. He also takes the view that
power transforms people into evildoers. Man can’t realise his/her true nature when exposed to power. Therefore Yeshua insists on the abolishment of government. In the future, without the dominance of any power supported by a suppressing récit, a life in
accordance with Man’s true nature will be possible. He predicts that – one day – there
will be no repression at all and that Man will enter the realm of honesty and righteousness.217 This attitude has, according to Bulgakov, no place in a society dominated by
power and an oppressive récit. Confronted with the risk of being killed Yeshua is
scared, as anyone would be, and he asks Pilate to let him go. He thus denies the secular
power completely but is dramatically exposed to its ability to exert physical violence.
However, Yeshua takes the full responsibility in defending his own interpretation of the
human condition. Bulgakov puts Yeshua in a situation where he could save his life by
lying. He refuses to lie, though he is scared of dying.
On the basis of these observations it is reasonable to claim that Bulgakov has depicted Yeshua as a man worth of praise for many reasons. He is educated (he is able to
speak several languages), he is autonomous in his thinking (and well-read in Greek philosophy), he is able to question the récit of the dominant (Jewish) tradition, he is critical
about the role of secular Roman power (he dreams of a future where there is no such
power), he believes in the goodness of man, he demonstrates a dimension that is deeply
humanist. Though he is scared of dying (as everybody is). He is the only one in the novel who is courageous enough to face the mortal consequences of an existential choice. It
217
It is evident that Yeshua here is expressing thoughts that are close to what Western anarchists like
Godwin and Proudhon are known for. On the other hand, Yeshua's vision does not show any similarities
with ideas promoted by Russian anarchists Bakunin and Krapotkin. Western anarchism is known for its
advocating of the individual's total emancipation from all suppression and all violence.
109
is not quite clear if Bulgakov blames Yeshua for something. It could, however, be assumed that Bulgakov regarded him as too naïve. He calls Pilate "a good man" and trusts
Judas during their dinner. Also his idea of Man as good by nature and his hope that
power will disappear one day can be seen as indications of his naivety.
Conclusions of the second analysis
After the analysis of the moral standard of the six dramatis personae it is possible to
draw a number of conclusions about what set of traditional ideas and values Bulgakov is
vindicating in “The Pilate Novel” as well as what kind of moral behavior he is criticizing. The result is different in comparison with that in the other works analyzed in this
thesis. In two of these works the background of his discussion was the civil war in
1918-1919. In three other works the background was the emerging totalitarian Soviet
society in the middle of the 1920ies. In “The Pilate Novel”, Bulgakov is not primarily
interested in the specific conditions of life in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Instead he
discusses important values in human life in a more timeless perspective.
Power and responsibility are the two central concepts in the text. Three relations to
power are articulated. Pilate is the incarnation of the political, military and juridical
power of the Roman Empire. Caiaphas represents the power of the Jewish religious hierarchy. Yeshua is the one who recommends the dissolution of power in order to liberate Man.
The relation of the individual to power can be characterized by courage with its
opposite, cowardice, often demonstrated in relation to Power. Yeshua is the most courageous of the six main characters. Even if he is afraid of being beaten and killed, he
does not tell a lie in a decisive moment in order to save his life. Caiaphas also demonstrates a kind of courage when he – very skillfully – confronts the representative of the
mighty Roman power. Even Matthew must be regarded as courageous when he tries in
vain to shorten the sufferings of his master.
Pilate is a more complex case. He is known for his courage in war, but – exposed to
the existential dilemma of sentencing the innocent Yeshua he behaves as a coward. After the execution of Yeshua, Afranius reports – falsely – to Pilate that the man’s last
words had been that cowardice is the worst sin of all.218 This phrase seems to be echoing words attributed to Alcibiades by Plato.219 If so, there is again a reference by Bulgakov to an ancient author.
The most central value illustrated in “The Pilate Novel” is, however, responsibility.
Pilate, the key figure of the novel, is confronted with a difficult choice. He represents
the Roman view of legal matters but he condemns an innocent man to death – both for
political reasons (to calm the Jewish unrest) and for personal reasons (to secure his own
life and career). He thus fails in his duty to decide as an impartial judge. Here, Bulgakov
seems to echo the ideas of contemporary existentialists. Everybody can desert from
his/her own ideals. In the case of Pilate – after having failed to do what is right – he
tries to re-establish some sort of justice through the murder of Judas, the man who provided the enemies of Yeshua with the decisive testimony. But, after all, Pilate is not
corrupted by Power. His personal tragedy is his awareness of his guilt and of his power218
This was also written in Matthews' notes that Pilate read with great interest (see Glenny’s translation
of The Master and Margarita, p 347; cf. Sobranie sochinenii, vol. 5, p 319). Bulgakov hated cowardice
(trusost) according to Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove 1988 (p 429).
219
Plato, Alkibiades 1, 115 D (in Loeb’s English translation, p 143). The observation is made already by
Elbaum and by Proffer (1984, p 546).
110
lessness. As Bulgakov describes his feelings: "He was seized, suffocating and burning,
by the most terrible rage of all rage - the rage of impotence" (in M. Glenny's translation).220 Pilate is doomed. There seems to be no way out for him.
If Pilate, after all, demonstrates liability, there are characters that do not bother
about questions of personal responsibility at all. Afranius is a typical example of a subordinated servant who only tries to fulfill the given orders of his chief (he executes Yeshua without any remorse) or tries to do what the chief wants to be done (he has Judas
murdered after having trapped him with the help of an attractive woman). Judas does
not care very much about his responsibility towards a fellow being (Yeshua). On the
other hand, Caiaphas and Matthew demonstrate both some kind of responsibility but
their way of doing this is affected by fanaticism and rigidity in the case of Caiaphas and
by stupidity in the case of Matthew.
Another important value illustrated in “The Pilate Novel” is intellectual brightness
with its contrast in terms of stupidity and naivety. Both in the conversations between
Pilate and Yeshua and between Pilate and Caiaphas, the participants show significant
intellectual capacity. It is well known that Bulgakov demonstrated a high estimate of
intellectual brightness and – as an elitist – despised the lack of it. Matthew is evidently a
victim of his contempt in “The Pilate Novel”. In the same text he also seems to be negative to naivety. Both Yeshua and Judas are described as naïve in their attitudes to other
people (both were easily trapped).
Closely related to the intellectual ability of an individual is his/her mental openness
to other people’s arguments or to new and unknown perspectives. The contrast to this
value is a person’s mental rigidity. Yeshua is the most open character in the novel. He is
independent in his thinking in relation to Greek philosophy, Jewish religious tradition
and Roman power policy. In contrast to him, Caiaphas is very rigid (fanatic according
to Pilate and Bulgakov) in his defense of the Jewish belief. Matthew is another example
of rigidity. He never becomes aware of the fact that he has misinterpreted his master’s
words.
Pilate, on the other hand, is a man who develops from certain skepticism in his attitude to Yeshua's message towards a position, where he demonstrates a remarkable
openness for Yeshua’s words. In the ending of The Master and Margarita Pilate and
Yeshua make company (walking in a moon stream in their afterlife) under an eternal
and animated conversation thereby illustrating the very idea of an open communication
between two well-educated individuals. Their behavior can easily be associated with the
basic values of the Western Enlightenment.
Bulgakov's discussion of moral values in "The Pilate Novel" is thus concentrated to
the conflict between power and responsibility and to three pairs of opposite concepts:
Courage – cowardness
Intelligence – stupidity
Mental openness – mental rigidity
His discussion of moral behavior in "The Pilate Novel" is universal but, at the same
time, applicable to any society.
Bulgakov's vindication of certain traditional (pre-revolutionary) ideas and values
identified in the preceding texts is now replaced by the emphasis of three more univer220
Теперь его уносил, удушая и обжигая, самый страшный гнев, гнев бессилияя (Sobranye sochineni, vol. 5, p 37).
111
sal values: courage, intelligence and mental openness. The concept of "courage" is no
longer associated with the Roman concept of virtus but rather with the idea of existential moral choices. The concept of "intelligence" has been somewhat extended in its
meaning in comparison with Bulgakov's previous purely elitist interpretation of the concept. The concept of "mental openness" is a new value not earlier advocated by him in
the analysed texts. All three concepts are subordinated a superior concept, that of "responsibility". It appears that Bulgakov has condensated his life experience in regarding
responsibility as the fundamental value in a world dominated by various expressions of
Power. By "The Pilate Novel" he has taken the last step in his development of being a
member of (in Greenblatt's words) "one of the great institutions for the enforcement of
cultural bounderies through praise and blame".
When writing "The Pilate Novel" Bulgakov could make use of what he learnt as a
young son in the home of a Professor of Theology as well as what he had learnt at
school about antiquity. When preparing his text he also had made some complementary
reseach among ancient authors and the leading authorities if Christiology. He then combined his findings with his own phantasy, this time resisting from mochery and satire.
At last, his training as a novelist and a playwrith helped him to create a dramatic story
populated by a limited number of distinct characters representing three different notions
of life. Through the description of their actions and sayings he could inquire into the
moral problems of human life.
A final discussion
At last, it is possible to approach the question why Bulgakov choose Jerusalem in the
time of Jesus as the place and time for a part of his sunset novel The Master and Margarita.
A number of possible reasons for his choice can be pondered. As a consequence of
his personal background (he was brought up in a Christian home and his father was a
professor of theology), Bulgakov could hardly be described as religious but he disapproved the official atheism in the Soviet Union. He was also, as I have already mentioned (p XXVIII) familiar with the discussion of different authors of christography (i.e.
Strauss, Renan, Farrar, Drews). For these reasons Bulgakov may – without being a practicing Christian himself – have wanted to preserve the central content of the Christian
story and its Jewish background in the Soviet society, where the Bible was put on the
Soviet index librorum prohibitorum. If this is a part of the explanation of his choice of
place and time, it has nothing to do with any wish to produce a more plausible story
than that of the Gospels. He may have just wanted to preserve the main Christian story
for his Soviet readers.
Jerusalem in the time of Jesus may also have attracted Bulgakov simply as being a
well-known arena for moral choices. It was also an advantage that this historical environment was and is well documented by both Christian and secular authors. An irrational factor of certain importance could have been that Kiev the city of Bulgakov's youth
was sometimes called “Russian Jerusalem”.
One may also consider the possibility that Bulgakov chose Jerusalem in the time of
Jesus in order to stress some similarities between his own time and the beginning of the
first century A.D. Several scholars explicitly claim that Bulgakov in fact was criticizing
112
his contemporary society in “The Jerusalem Chapters”. Two quotations from Proffer
and from Curtis may show this:221
What the novel about Pontius Pilate shows us is the way law and justices
are perverted, in turn perverting the very nature of human interaction when
despotism is the form of government. This situation parallels that of Russia under Stalin… (Proffer 1984, p 549).
Bulgakov, in offering his version of the Passion in the modern era, may of
course […] have been implying a challenge to the notion of State power
(Curtis, Bulgakov's last decade, 1987, p 152).
For me it is more plausible to see some of the six dramatis personae representing wellknown types of people in all kinds of totalitarian societies at any time. It is self-evident
that Judas reminds the reader of the frequent informers in such societies. Afranius belongs to a category of irresponsible but efficient tools in the service of a totalitarian regime. Matthew can be associated with all those ardent but incompetent interpreters of a
new récit that pervert the theories. Caiaphas is similar to a number of intelligent but
fanatic representatives of an ideology. These kinds of people were of course well represented in Bulgakov’s USSR.
It could, however, be added that Bulgakov may have been attracted by the existence
of an intense conflict between three strong récits in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. It
may have reminded him about the conflict between the Christian narrative and the
Marxist narrative in his own lifetime. In "The Pilate Novel" he was able to describe not
only the conflict between the Roman narrative and the Jewish one. The story is also
about the origin of the Christian récit. He had witnessed how the Marxist récit replaced
the Christian one in the Orthodox Russia based on a misinterpretation of the doctrines
of Marx. Bulgakov suggests in “The Pilate Novel” that the Christian récit, based on a
misinterpretation brought about by Matthew, will one day replace the Roman one. In
both cases the consequence was that a transition from one prevalent récit into another
strong récit took place. These transitions are however not comparable in terms of time
as it took hundreds of years for the Christian récit to be established in the Roman Empire, while the dominance of the Marxist récit in the Russian Empire was established in
less than one decade. He may also have been of the opinion that the dogmatic Orthodox
Church sometimes had used as aggressive methods as the Communist “religious”
cult.222
221
On other parallels see Lesskis & Atarova 2007, pp 307 -314.
This view is for instance taken by O. Shakhnazarov in “Sovetskoye obshchestvo 1917 – 1953…”, in
Voprosy Filosofii, 2004, no. 10, pp 33–46. In this context, it is useful to remember that Stalin had been
studing at a theological seminary intending to become an Orthodox Priest, but was expelled from the
seminar.
222
113
Chapter 7. Conclusions and a final discussion
Introduction
The analysis of the selected texts has resulted in a number of conclusions presented in
the previous chapters. It is now time to put together and evaluate the concise picture of
these conclusions and, finally, to discuss how one can describe Bulgakov’s position as a
writer in the Soviet Union.
The primary aim of the dissertation was to study traditional (pre-revolutionary)
ideas and values vindicated by Bulgakov in some selected works as well as some contemporary phenomena criticized by him. The origins of vindicated ideas and values
should be identified at the same time. A second aim was to study how and to what extent Bulgakov was modifying his way of defending certain ideas and values during his
lifetime. A third aim was to inquire how Bulgakov worked when he is fulfilling his intentions. It was regarded to be of particular interest to see how he mixed facts and fiction, when he expressed his non-conformist views. I should also be of interest to study
to what extent he was simplifying, complicating, dramatizing, satirising what he was
describing.
The results related to these three purposes will now be summarized and evaluated.
In a final discussion Bulgakov's position as a writer in the Soviet context will be
touched upon in order to return to the beginning av the inquiry.
Bulgakov as a vindicator of traditional ideas and values
The central theme of this dissertation is about what kind of traditional ideas and values
that were defended by Bulgakov in the analysed texts. This means that – at the same
time – the focus is on what kind of new ideas and values in the USSR he is criticizing or
satirizing. The final presentation of my results can now be organized under a number of
subtitles in order to facilitate the critical reading.
Socio-political ideas and values
In The White Guard Bulgakov indicates very clearly that he supports the idea of a Russian Empire based on the Tsarist Monarchy and the Orthodox Church. This view can
now be associated with an idea that was launched after the Napoleon wars by the European monarchs with tsar Alexander I as the initiator (the same tsar is presented in The
White Guard as one of the favourites of the Turbin family). A "Holy Alliance" between
the European monarchs was established in 1815 to guarantee law and order all over the
European continent and to oppose all liberal and nationalistic movements. Bulgakov
seems to have been more or less influenced by this idea and it is therefore logical that he
was against all expressions of nationalism/separatism. In The White Guard Aleksei explicitly asks tsar Alexander I to help the Whites in Kiev to fight against Petlyura as the
leader of a nationalist/separatist movement. Bulgakov's appreciation of the Orthodox
Church as a basic societal institution does not mean that he was convinced of all its
dogmas. On the contrary he was against all kind of fundamentalism. But Russian monarchy and the Orthodox Church were inseparable in his view. It should be added that he
was very well aware of the fact that the monarchy was in need of a reform, possibly a
constitutional reform.
114
In The Days of the Turbins the tsar is still hailed by the Turbins and a portrait of
tsar Alexander I was still present on the stage but there were no longer any associations
to the role of the Orthodox Church. To argue for the role of the Church in a society that
had abolished religion was certainly too inopportune.
In the The Fatal Eggs, The Heart of a Dog and Zoyka’s Apartment the background
of the plot is that the Communist regime has been firmly established. Bulgakov demonstrates a number of critical views on the new regime in these texts. He seems to refuse
to regard the new Socialist state as the result of a revolution. It is rather the question of
disorder that has replaced a previous order. Particulalry in Zoyka’s Apartment he criticises the tendencies towards totalitarianism in the USSR. The social and political
chagnes had led to the disappearance of a number of values that were dear to him. In the
two science fiction stories he castigates the megalomania of the new administration as
well as its idea about the emergence of "a new man" but he also deplores the new regime’s policy to reduce the privacy of the individual’s home. In Zoyka’s Apartment he
deplores the loss of the value of individual integrity and the personal freedom of movement. Here, he also illustrates the negative effects of the political regime on the moral
behaviour of its citizens.
In “The Pilate Novel” Bulgakov appears to have finally reached a deeper insight in
the character of the relation between the individual and the government. In this text he is
analysing the complex problems of power and the moral responsibility of the individual
as well as the character of conflicts between different ways of interpreting the human
condition. He also gives some importance to Yeshua’s argument that one day when
there will be no power and no government at all, Man will "pass into the kingdom of
truth and justice". As long as there are rulers, not even a mighty Roman procurator can
make his decisions according to his own will, as he is captured in a structure of which
he is a part. Even Pilate is suffering from personal powerlessness (see p XXIX).
In The White Guard and in The Days of the Turbins Bulgakov describes the family
as the basic nucleus of society. These texts are sometimes rightly seen as love-songs to
the value of the family. For Bulgakov a necessary precondition of the family life was a
home of guaranteed privacy. In Moskva 20-kh godov he writes "Lets agree once for
ever: the home is a corner stone of Man's life” (my translation).223 To regard the family
as the basis of society is an idea of a very long tradition, indeed.
In the texts that mirror the life in the USSR the family has lost its central importance. In the two science fiction stories the key characters are without families. In
Zoyka’s Apartment Bulgakov demonstrates the effects of the dissolution of the value of
the family as a consequence of the established Communist regime. In “The Pilate Novel” the idea of the family has vanished completely. Both Yeshua and Pilate are described as lonely men (in contrast to what is said about them in the Bible). One can only
speculate about the reasons of the disappearance of the family in this text.
Among the socio-political values favoured by Bulgakov is a high estimate of an
urban lifestyle. In The White Guard he had tried to locate Kiev of his youth as a literary
city on the same cultural level as S. Petersburg and Moscow. But, after having moved to
Moscow in 1921, he regards this city as the single true metropolis in the USSR in the
1920ies. There were theatres, pubs, clubs, restaurants, art galleries and shops, cars and
busses. There were crowds of people in the streets; there were cinemas. On the other
side, famous cities abroad are the object of people’s longing. In Zoyka's Apartment he
223
Условимся раз и навсегда: жилише есть основной камень жизни человеческой. (Sobraniye sochineny, vol. 2, p 437).
115
describes how the girls are dreaming of strolling along the boulevards of Paris. Bulgakov's own view of urban life in Moscow in the NEP period was positive but far from
idealised. He describes the dark sides of it with drugs, criminality and housing shortage.
But in his view it was still undoubtedly preferable to live in a metropolis than in the province.
Ideas about the dynamism of history
It is self-evident that Bulgakov did not share the Marxist ideas of certain "objective"
laws regulating the dynamism of history, even if he was not unfamiliar with the existence of such ideas. But he even seems – if my reading of The Heart of a Dog is reasonable – to have criticised the Bolshevik interpretation of the social theories of Marx.
My reading of The White Guard seems to indicate that Bulgakov’s interpretation of
historical change can be associated with that of ancient Roman historians (Livy, Sallust
and Tacite). According to them there are two factors that can explain what happens in
history: on the one hand the fate (fortuna) and, on the other, personal courage (virtus)
together with one's loyalty (pietas) in relation to one's family, native city, state, religion
etc. In The White Guard it is very clear that Bulgakov explains what is happening in the
civil war by means of the moral deficiencies of the key actors (i.e. their lack of virtus
and pietas).
In “The Pilate Novel” Bulgakov seems – according to my reading – to have applied
a more complex way of interpreting history. The dramatic nerve of the text has been
clarified through the introduction of the analytic concept of “récit” (in the sense of "a
given interpretation of the world"). Regarded in this perspective, the main characters of
the novel represent three different récits, the Roman, the Jewish and the emerging
Christian one. All these récits have their typical ways of describing the world order.
The development of the conflicts between the six characters is comprehensible against
this background.
It is possible to add that Bulgakov – in his interpretation of historical change – also
seems to have been interested in the issue of the succession of dominating récits. He
has himself witnessed how a new récit, the incompetent interpretation of the Marxist
narrative, replaced an ideology based on the traditional Christian récit in his own time
and how this change led to an endless number of sufferings. In "The Pilate Novel" the
Christian récit is created but its message is according to Bulgakov distorted through the
incompetence of one of the participating characters (Matthew).
Ideas about man as a moral being
In all the texts that have been analysed Bulgakov exposes his characters to moral judgments thereby showing what kind of moral values he himself is vindicating.
First of all, he defends a traditional humanist view of human beings (the concept of
"humanist" refers to the moral standards and the dignity of Man). In doing so he rejects
the Communist idea of “a new man”, adapted to the Communist society. The criticism
of this idea is to be found in The Heart of a Dog. Here, he makes the professor reverse
the process of transplantation, when "the new man" in this story appeared to be something extremely abominable. But even if it were possible to create a Spinoza from a dog
one should, according to the professor, not do it, as Nature itself takes care of creating
new intelligent human beings. Bulgakov is also convinced that human nature is invariable. As was indicated in the analysis, this view is clearly expressed in the words of
116
Woland in The Master and Margarita: "the much more important question: have the
Muscovites changed inwardly? ... (Glenny's translation, p 133). “They 're people like
any others." (ibid. p 137).224 Human beings are always the same. Societies they live in
are changing. This notion is a cornerstone of Bulgakov's thinking.
Closely associated with the idea of the humanist view of human beings is the value
of the individual's integrity and the free choice of movement, which was threatened by
the emerging totalitarian state in USSR. This is one of the themes in Zoyka's Apartment.
This criticism is articulated through his satirical description of the attitude of the authorities and through his sympathizing description of Zoyka who is using criminal methods
to secure her own emigration to France. Bulgakov himself deplored more than once that
he could not see the world, a wish that he expressed several times in letters to the Soviet
government.225
The traditional value of courage, particularly in contrast to its opposite, the moral
deficiency of treachery or cowardice, seems to be of basic importance in Bulgakov's
ethical judgments of human beings. This value is articulated in practically all texts that
have been analysed. Bulgakov associates the value of courage often (but not always)
with the Roman concept of virtus and seems to refer to Plato when he presents his negative view of cowardice as the worst of sins (see p XXX with footnote 40). The Roman
concept of virtus includes not only a reference to military courage but is also closely
associated with values such as faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty and responsibility (often
called pietas by the Romans). In The White Guard, the Turbins and their friends are
described as men of true virtus and pietas. Particularly Malyshev and Nay-Turs are seen
as admirable representatives of these values. The reward for having showed virtus in
life is said to be an eternal life among the stars (an idea borrowed from a text of Cicero
– see p XXXI). In The White Guard, quite a few individuals are, however, illustrating
the absence of this value, as they behave as cowards or are treacherous and unmindful
of their duties. The psychology of these different characters is depicted very much in
black and white.
In the play The Days of the Turbins, Colonel Turbin demonstrates a more simplified
kind of virtus that also has got a certain accent of patriotic pathos. This figure was
moulded during the staging of the play when Bulgakov was compelled to modify his
text. Colonel Turbin became a sort of a conventional hero. But examples of cowardice
are still present in the same play. This is, for instance, demonstrated by the hetman
when he is quitting the field in a ridiculous way. In The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a
Dog both professors show a kind of courage when they have to handle crucial matters.
Persikov in The Fatal Eggs stays in his institute though it is dangerous. At last he is
killed by the mob. In The Heart of a Dog the professor tells the house committee that he
does not have any reason to like the proletariat, a courageous utterance, indeed, in
Stalin's Moscow.
In “The Pilate Novel”, the concept of virtus/courage has become a much more
complex phenomenon and is not illustrated by purely positive or negative representatives as in The White Guard. Now the mature writer sees the world as more complicated
than he did as a young author. He is concentrated on eternal questions and on the sophisticated character of human nature. Pilate is described as a man of military virtus
when he was a commander in Germany. But later, when he finds himself confronted
224
более важный вопрос изменились ли эти горожане внутренне? ... (Sobraniye sochineny, vol. 5, p
119) - они - люди как люди. ..обыкновенные люди...." (ibid. p 23).
225
One of the letters is presented in an English translation in Milne 1990, pp 268-274.
117
with the trial of Yeshua/Jesus he behaves more like a coward who sends an innocent
man to die.
In “The Pilate Novel”, the value of responsibility is much more emphasised than in
Bulgakov's earlier writings. Pilate represents Roman power in Jerusalem and is the one
who is responsible for the fate of Yeshua. The procurator is confronted with a decision
where he has to handle a difficult existential dilemma. Bulgakov’s increased interest in
the role and difficulties of a responsible human being might reflect his many painful
experiences in Moscow of the 1930ies. At the same time he might have been influenced
by the contemporary trend in existentialist philosophy. His description of Pilate's dilemma leads one's thoughts to Sartre's famous book L'existentialisme est un humanisme
that appeared some years after Bulgakov's death (1946). On the whole, existential thinking was typical of the period and Bulgakov was possibly influence by it, an idea already
promoted by some scholars.226
Another traditional value that Bulgakov is vindicating is human moderation in the
sense of the ancient Greek idea of sophrosyne. The opposite of sophrosyne was hybris
(human presumption). A man transgressing the borders of Nature was, according to the
ancient belief, automatically exposed to the revenge (nemesis). In The Fatal Eggs Bulgakov criticizes the Soviet megalomania, exemplified by a sovkhoz leader who tried to
speed up the production and growth of chickens by means of the newly discovered ray,
a decision that lead to an immediate disaster. It is reasonable to assume that Bulgakov
had learnt about the idea of sophrosyne during his early reading of Sophokles (see p
47). In The Heart of a Dog he presents a case where he illustrates the idea that Man
cannot improve Nature, another idea of ancient Greek origin.
The values of science and culture
The most illustrative cases of how Bulgakov vindicates the value of knowledge and
science are to be found in The Fatal Eggs and in The Heart of a Dog, where he is praising the behaviour of the scientists. They have dedicated their lives to Science and show
a great portion of courage when defending values that have to do with the ethos of scientific knowledge. Particularly professor Persikov in The Fatal Eggs is going on with
his work in spite of the disaster of military Communism in USSR. Bulgakov also criticizes irresponsible and incompetent use of scientific knowledge in these two texts. His
criticism reminds the reader of the ancient idea that advanced knowledge should be
handled by specialists, not by anybody (articulated for instance by Plato in his dialogue
Kriton).
Bulgakov's vindication of the value of true knowledge in The Heart of a Dog is also
illustrated by his criticism of Marxism. In this text he seems to regard Marxism as a
scientific theory. He describes how professor Preobrazhensky maintains that a Socialist
society could only be realised in a developed democratic country with educated workers. In backward Russia the idea of socialism became a parody in his eyes. Here Bulgakov seems to refer to the works of Kautsky (explicitly mentioned in the text). He therefore seems to take the view that Marxism must be discussed as any scientific theory.
226
Cf. I. Vinogradov, ”Zaveshchaniye Mastera”, in Voprosy literatury, 6 (1968), pp 43-81; M. Glenny,
"Existential Thought in Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita", in Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15
(1981), pp 238-249; A. Barratt, Between Two Worlds: The Master and Margarita, Oxford 1987.
118
Bulgakov's high estimate of education and scientific competence is present also in
his sunset novel.227 In “The Pilate Novel”, Bulgakov blames Matthew for having misinterpreted Yeshua’s message. The reason is, according to Bulgakov, that Matthew is an
ignorant man that did not understand his master's teaching. Pilate, on the other hand, is a
learned man (masters several languages), has a comprehensive library in his villa in
Caesarea and has studied philosophy (it appears during his interview with Yeshua). He
was therefore able to understand Yeshua's message correctly. It was, indeed, a bold
challenge to make Pilate a disciple of Yeshua able to understand his message correctly,
because he was an erudite.
Bulgakov's somewhat highbrow attitude towards those who are ignorant is evident.
His appreciation of knowledge should also be related to the historical situation of his
own life. When Stalin took over after Lenin, the number of less educated people began
to play a more important role in the party and in the government. Marxism could now
be seen as based on a perverted interpretation of Marx' theories. In this perspective it is
understandable that it was extremely important to Bulgakov to praise knowledge and
blame ignorance.
Finally it should be added that Bulgakov was deeply rooted in European culture.
This becomes particularly evident when he – in The White Guard – was defending this
culture in its Russian version against what he perceived as an attack from the wild
steppes (cf. Milne 1990, p 77). He has also been described by Zerkalov as living his true
life in his own world of books (2003, p 188).
The origin of ideas and values defended by Bulgakov: a summing up
The analysis has shown that Bulgakov was vindicating a set of ideas and values of a
traditional kind. A brief survey of the historical background of these ideas and values
might give a concentrated picture of his varying sources of inspiration, even if it leads
to some repetition of what has already been said.
The idea of a Russian empire based on the Tsarist Monarchy and the Orthodox
Church seems to stem ultimately from the ideas of "the Holy Alliance" initiated by Alexander I. Bulgakov might also have thought of the old idea that the tradition of the
Roman Empire had been transmitted to the Russian Empire when Constantinople had
been conquered by the Turcs in 1453.228
The high value attributed to family life in a private home is of course well established in the European urban tradition, particularly in the social context of a person like
Bulgakov. Here, however, one can also think of the Roman clear distinction between
official life or the public sphere (res publica) and the private life (res privata).
Bulgakov's appreciation of an urban lifestyle is typical of a European intellectual
and has the structure of the European city as a precondition, at least since the Renaissance. Also in antiquity urban life had been preferred by those that could choose their
lifestyle, even if well-to-do persons as mighty landowners spent part of their time in
their villas. In Roman literature, life at the countryside was often praised by the poets in
contrast to urban life (for instance by Horace).
227
In The Master and Margarita, Ivan who is described as ignorant has written an antireligious poem on
Jesus' life. Later he has studied and became a professor of history. A man can change and develop when
he has understood that he previously was ignorant, is Bulgakov's belief.
228
Ivan IV appropriated the Roman emperor's title of caesar in 1547. The idea that Moscow was "the
third Rome" (after Constantinople and Rome itself) was coined by the monk Filofej already in 1510.
119
The idea of a humanist view of human beings associated with the idea of the individual's integrity, freedom and dignity stems mainly from the time of the Enlightenment
(cf. Mirandola's famous speech from 1487 De hominis dignitate). In our time this idea is
mostly expressed by the concept of "human rights".
When it comes to individual qualities such as courage, faithfulness, loyalty, moderation, competence, they all stem from ancient authors that have been identified:
Sophokles, Plato, Cicero and Roman historians such as Livy, Sallust and Tacite. Also
the idea of personal responsibility, an idea that had been emphasized by the existentialists, can be said to have one of its roots in the ideas of Roman law.
Bulgakov's estimate of science and culture is well known. He was born and educated in an environment of learning and cultivation both at home and at school. Most of
what he learnt was based on a long tradition of studies and research, also stemming
from antiquity.
On the basis of his intellectual training he could both develop an independent attitude to the Bolshevik interpretation of Marxist social theories and understand history in
the way advocated by ancient Roman historians.
Changes in Bulgakov's way of vindicating traditional ideas and values
How did Bulgakov modify his way of vindicating traditional ideas and values over
time? The changes of his views can more easily be clarified, if one relates the results of
the analysed texts to three successive socio-political situations.
What he writes in The White Guard and The Days of the Turbins is related to a historical situation, where he had witnessed the collapse of the Tsarist Russian Empire.
The ideas and values he defends in The Fatal Eggs, Heart of a Dog and Zoyka's Apartment are associated with a socio-political situation, where the establishment of a new
totalitarian society was a fact. In "The Pilate Novel" at last, the story takes place in a
quite different socio-political situation namely in Roman antiquity. It should of course
be kept in mind that a hardening control of the censors influenced his possibilities of
defending his ideas and values in the texts belonging to all the three periods.
In the first period Bulgakov looks for stable values in a collapsing world. He regards the Tsarist regime and the Orthodox Church as the self-evident fundaments of
Russian society in the White Guard, ideas that he was obliged to tone down in The Days
of the Turbins. The traditional family is, however, regarded in both texts as the very
nuclear of society. In The White Guard he also expresses his preference for a typically
European urban life. Bulgakov's way of explaining the dynamism of history in the
White Guard is based on the idea that the moral behaviour of individual and collective
actors is one decisive factor for the outcome of history. Here he follows the Roman way
of interpreting history. Doing so, he is mostly concerned with the problem of treachery.
In this period he also appears as a committed defender of European culture and the role
of the Russian language within this culture.
In the second period Bulgakov is very critical about the totalitarian character of the
Soviet state. In the new socio-political situation the individuals' personal integrity, geographical mobility and moral standard are threatened. The value of the traditional family
in a private home had been lost. The reason of this loss is evidently the establishing of
the system of shared flats in the USSR. He could still, however, estimate the urban qualities of Moscow during its vibrant economy in the 1920ies. In this period, he does not
regard the socio-political changes in Russia as the consequence of a true revolution.
Order has only been replaced by disorder. In the totalitarian period he is mainly worried
120
about the negative consequences of the regime on the integrity and the moral standards
of the individuals. He is particularly defending the value of a humanist view of Man,
when the Communist idea of the creation of "the new man" threatened this idea. He
also defends the value of professional competence in natural as well as in social sciences. The Soviet society is according to Bulgakov based on a perverted interpretation of
Marx as a consequence of the increasing role of incompetent people in the service of the
regime. This has lead to a situation where traditional ideas and values are completely
disregarded. Nature is no longer respected but exposed to incompetent manipulation.
Bulgakov therefore advocates the value of the ancient philosophical idea of sophrosyne
(moderateness).
The socio-political environment described in "The Pilate Novel" is characterized by
sharp tensions between the Roman Empire and the Jewish community. At the same
time, the idea of government (of the Roman Empire and its main representative Pilate)
is questioned. The historical dynamism in "The Pilate Novel" has – according to my
reading – its roots in the ongoing conflicts between three strong narratives. In this text,
Bulgakov is more sophisticated in his view of moral qualities. He seems to have been
influenced by contemporary existential thinking. He therefore focuses very much on the
role of responsibility and, particularly, on the lack of responsibility. He also is underlining the importance of prudence and blames the occurrence of naivety.
During the analytic process of the selected texts it was found that Bulgakov modified his way of vindicating traditional ideas and values in several successive steps. Now,
it is possible to claim that two of them are more important than the others. First he went
from a rather simple way of judging the conflicts associated with the fall of the Russian
Empire to a more subtle criticism of the established Bolshevik society. Then he went
from this way of defending traditional ideas and values in the Soviet context to a more
sophisticated discussion of the problems of power and responsibility in a general, timeless perspective.
After having looked into Bulgakov's workroom
In his defence of traditional ideas and values Bulgakov is using a number of various
literary technics. In The White Guard he is dramatizing the story of the novel in a simplified way by contrasting "good" and "evil" actors, i.e. he he distinguishing between
those who try to defend the existing order from those who are contributing to its collapse. In his writing he is shifting between pure reportage and interspersed commentaries. In The Fatal Eggs and The Heart of a Dog he is writing sharp satire of the new
regime, partly inspired by his frequent reading of the ancient Greek author Lukian. The
idea of the plots had he taken from H.G.Wells. In The Days of the Turbins he develops a
remarkable talent for entertaing a huge public by means of humour and the creation of
living charaters, where he succeeds in winning the public's sympathy for the way of life
of a traditional (pre-revolutionary) family. The play was a great success and this success
was compared to that of Chekhov's Seagull in 1908. In Zoika's Apartment he seems to
have been able to cover his criticism of the emerging totalitarian Soviet society behind a
superficial critical description of the life of somewhat lawless people in Moscow in the
NEP-period. In "The Pilate Novel", finally, he has mobilized his long life experience
and his ability to profit from his familiarity both with the Christian tradition and with
antiquity in order to create a dramatized story.
In my study of how Bulgakov elaborated his way of vindicating traditional ideas and
values I have particularly focussed on how he mixes "facts" (found in various historical
121
sources) with pure fiction. By “fact” I mean more or less (often less) reliable historical
or other significant information. It can be stated at once that the relation between fiction
and facts varies quite a lot between the different works.
In The White Guard Bulgakov has based his story on a series of facts related to historical events in the time of the civil war in and around Kiev. He regards himself as a
trustworthy witness of what happened. His interpretation of the historical course of
events is, however, far from consistent with that of professional historians. The political
and military conflicts outside of Kiev are weekly represented as a background of the
story. His story mirrors mainly how the members of his family and their friends perceived the critical days in Kiev but it would be a mistake to believe that ideas articulated
by his characters always are identical with his own. In his imagination he has then transformed the story to something that is more or less a fictitious tale. Thus, the role of fiction is much more important than the role of facts in The White Guard. It is the author’s
creative ability that has made the book into a fascinating reading.
The Fatal Eggs is a text where the relation between fiction and facts is of a definitely different character. The story is a kind of science fiction. The fictitious elements of
The Fatal Eggs are therefore of course dominating but Bulgakov has integrated into the
story a number of satirical attacks on factual phenomena in the contemporary Soviet
Union. He also seems to articulate a presentiment of what was going to happen in the
field of science and political practice in the same country. In this sense his text reproduces the regular character of science fiction. Thus, the author has written a text that is
fictitious on its surface but he has succeeded in involving sharp factual observations of
the contemporary (and to some extent the future) Soviet society into the story. For this
reason the story was read with interest but also exposed to frequent criticism after its
publication.
In The Heart of a Dog Bulgakov has also interwoven a number of critical observations of the USSR into another science fiction novella. The plot is of course completely
implausible and therefore almost entirely fictitious (only the description of the housing
conditions and of everyday life in Moscow is based on real facts). The nerve of the text
is, however, the sharp, satirical criticism of the misuse of natural science and of dominating theories of social science in the USSR (read “Marxism”). This criticism did not
escape the awareness of the custodians of the Communist ideology and the manuscript
was confiscated. Thus, the fictitious surface of The Heart of a Dog could not cover or
hide the hard kernel of its factual criticism of the really existing socioeconomic situation
in the USSR.
In The Days of the Turbins Bulgakov has retold the story of The White Guard. In
comparison with the novel, the play is still more focused on the fate of one family during the days of the civil war. Fiction has become more important than historical facts in
the play compared to the corresponding relation in the novel.
Zoyka’s Apartment confronts the analyser with a more intricate problem. On the
surface this is a comedy making jokes out of everyday life in the underworld in the days
of NEP. Bulgakov had found the very idea of the plot in a Moscow daily newspaper.
The play could therefore be interpreted as a text, where the author squared up accounts
with certain factual problems during the NEP period. And this was the interpretation
made consciously by the director of the theatre and possibly by many of the spectators.
A more thorough analysis seems, however, to show that the author instead was describing and disclosing the consequences of the emerging totalitarian state and its effects on
the behaviour of its citizens. Read in this way Zoyka’s Apartment becomes a text where
the underlying factual elements are more important than the fictitious ones on its sur-
122
face. Also this play was a great success in many Russian cities (and was later performed
in Paris).
The historical or rather traditional facts on which “The Pilate Novel” is based have
attracted the interest of some researchers. Their conclusion was that Bulgakov appears
to be a writer characterised by accuracy in his description of the factual environment of
the story. This has until now been regarded as the opinio communis. In this study, however, it has been demonstrated that Bulgakov certainly is very well acquainted with the
historical environment he has used for his story (and also familiar with the scientific
debate on Jesus) but he is far from accurate in the rendering of various historical facts.
Nor does he discuss the credibility of his own historical sources. He does not regard
himself as a historian (see p XXXII with footnote 26). His interest is instead to create a
fictitious story in which he can present his own views of certain aspects of the condition
of man and of the character of human conflicts in a time and place that is well known in
the Western history of ideas. Thus, also in this case fiction is the predominant element
of the story. This text was published only more than 25 years after Bulgakov's death.
A final discussion
Bulgakov's situation as a writer in the USSR
As a literary writer Bulgakov stood up for the defense of traditional ideas and values by
enforcing some cultural boundaries of the pre-revolutionary time through praise and
blame. He was, however, obliged to adapt his defence to the prevailing conditions of
ideological controle.
In the eyes of some readers and listeners he remained within acceptable bounderies,
a condition for being honoured with "admiration, respect, gratitude".229 The custodians
of Marxist ideological purity exposed him on the other hand to a number of symbolic
punishments but he was happy enough to be spared from "imprisonment in an insane
asylum, penal servitute, or execution".230
In the spring 1930, however, he became desperate and wrote a letter to the Soviet
Government (dated 28 of March 1930).231 In this well-known letter he asked the Government to let him leave the Soviet Union and – if this was impossible – to give him a
job at Moscow Art Theatre (MKhAT), preferable as an assistant director. By referring
to this letter and to some other instances of interest let me integrate my results with the
established view of Bulgakov as a writer in the Soviet context.
This letter together with some other sources sheds some interesting light on Bulgakov's situation as a writer in the USSR. In the letter he mentions the massive criticism
against his literary works not only from the censors. Reviewers of his works had been
mainly negative. Only three out of 301 articles about him published in newspapers and
periodicals during the 1920ies had been positive (Milne1990, p 269). Bulgakov wrote
that he agreed with the press when it claimed that his works could not exist in the USSR
(Milne ibid.). In his diary he worded the same thing in this way "Literature nowadays is
229
Greenblatt, "Culture", p 226.
Ibid. pp 225sq.
231
The authenticy of the letter was doubted when it was first published outside of the USSR in 1967 but
later (in 1987) it was confirmed when published inside the USSR. Its text is translated by Milne (1990, pp
268-274). The Russian original is to be found in Volshebny Fonar', pp 702sqq.
230
123
a difficult task. For me with my views that are displayed in my works in a way that I
cannot control myself it is difficult to be published and live" (my translation).232
In the letter Bulgakov thought it was permitted to write about his own firm idea of
the freedom of speech: "It is my duty as a writer to fight against censorship, of whatever
kind and under whatever system it exists, just as it is my duty as a writer to call for
freedom of the press" (translated by Milne 1990, p 270).233
In the same letter he also characterizes his satirical stories and their contents, his
stinging literary style, mentioning one of his predecessors: "…the black and mystic
colours (I am a mystic writer)234 in which are depicted the numerous deformities of our
environment; the venom of my tongue; the deep scepticism with regard to the
revolutionary process taking place in my backward country and, counterposed to it, my
love for the Great Evolution; and, most important, the portrayal of the terrible features
of my people, those traits which long before the revolution caused deep distress to my
teacher, [the nineteenth-century satirist] M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin" (translated by Milne
1990, p 271).235
Nobody managed to convince him to change his view. Many times Bulgakov's
friends told him to give up his position. They said: "Enough! You are a State within the
State" (my translation).236 Bulgakov's difficult situation in the Soviet Union was for the
most part determined by his persistent refusal to accept Bolshevism (Vospominaniya o
Mikhaile Bulgakove, p 53). As a writer Bulgakov was a kind of an institutional
opposition in the USSR.
It should, however, be underlined that in his role as a writer Bulgakov was all but a
courageous rebel. As we have seen, he was also often obliged to compromise with the
censors in order to get his plays accepted by them. It is probable that – in addition to
this – he imposed a certain self-censorship on himself. Once he admitted: "Unfortunately I am not a hero" (my translation).237 In his diary he regrets that he had printed some
of his works in the emigrant journal Nakanune. But he also excuses himself. He could
not let his works remain unpublished during four years without any hope to be published in the future either (Dnevnik. Pisma 1914-1940, p 61).
In the letter to the Soviet government mentioned above he also writes that he had
received a repeated piece of advice of writing a "Communist play" but he assures that
he was unable to write such a play (Milne 1990, p 268).238 Towards the end of his life
he made an attempt, however, to please his critics. The story of Bulgakov's never terminated project of writing a text to celebrate Stalin at his sixty years anniversary is an ex232
Литература теперь трудное дело. Мне с моими взглядами, волей неволей выливаюшимися в
произведениях, трудно печататься и жить (ibid. p 735).
233
Борьба с цензурой, какая бы она ни была и при какой бы власти она ни сушествовала, мой писательский долг, так же как и призывы к свободе печати (ibid. p 705).
234
The translator's italics, in Bulgakov's own text these words are written in block letters (see footnote
12).
235
черные и мистические краски (я - мистический писатель), в которых изображены бесчисленные уродства нашего быта, яд, которым пропитан мой язык, глубокий скептицизм в отношении
революционного процесса, происходящего в моей отсталой стране, и противопоставление ему
излюбленной и Bеликой Эволюции, а самое главное - изображение страшных черт моего народа,
тех черт, которые задолго до революции вызывали глубочайшие стралания моего учителя M.E.
Салтыкова Щедрина (ibid. p 705).
236
Довольно! Вы ведь государство в государстве! (Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove, p 145).
237
Я, к сожалению, не герой (Volshebny Fonar', p 736).
238
Cf. Попыток же сочинить коммунистическую пьесу я даже не производил, зная заведомо, что
такая пьеса у меня не выйдет (ibid. p 702).
124
ample of Bulgakov's deficient heroism. When he had begun to collect material about
Koba (Stalin's nickname) in order to give a true picture of young Stalin, he was informed that the Soviet leader was not amused. The play called "Batum" was an attempt
to write a "correct Soviet play" at last. The play was not accepted. He never recovered
from this misfortune.
Bulgakov's situation as a writer in the USSR was all the time exposed and complicated (and more complicated than Lucas seems to believe - see pp 1sq). There are, however, some factors that made his situation somewhat less difficult than that of other contemporary writers in the Soviet Union. Let me here add some reflections on this fact.
A first factor of importance for Bulgakov's situation in the USSR was his remarkable success as a playwright in Moscow and in other Russian cities as well as abroad. His
works were translated into French, English, German, Italian, Swedish and Czech (Pisma, p 386). In Moscow he was first regarded as a provincial, as he – a former medical
doctor and a White officer – came from Kiev (cf. Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove
2006, p 625). His way to his literary success was facilitated by two of his wives. His
second wife Lyubov Belozerskaya who was a well-educated woman and had spent a
number of years in Paris and Berlin before she came back to Moscow, introduced Bulgakov to the cultural elite of the capital and was also assisting him with translations. His
third wife Elena Shilovskaya was not only his muse but also had good contacts in the
world of theatre in Moscow and abroad (her parents lived in Riga in the independent
Latvia). Her sister was the assistant/secretary of Nemirovich-Danchenko at MKhAT,
where she had an influential position.
Bulgakov's play The Days of the Turbins was – as was mentioned above – the
greatest success after Chekhov's Seagull. Also his other plays were highly estimated by
the public. His popularity as a playwright in the USSR and his contacts abroad were
also of a certain importance for his personal safety.
Secondly, Bulgakov also enjoyed a certain support from above. One of the reasons
for this might have been that Stalin and Bulgakov had similar views on the permanence
of the Russian Empire.239 Though Stalin was not a Russian, he intended to create a Soviet Empire on the basis of the Old Russian Empire. In The Days of the Turbins, Aleksei, the main hero, tried to protect the Russian Empire against the Ukrainian separatists. This feature of the play probably appealed to Stalin's mind.
Stalin and Bulgakov also shared a similar cultural taste. The Soviet Leader read
much and preferred classics as Bulgakov did. Stalin held that literature should be neither left nor right. He suggested that when dealing with arts one must instead talk of
"soviet" and "anti-soviet" and of "revolutionary" and "antirevolutionary" (P'esy 20-kh
godov, p 24). He was therefore not fond of the avant-garde of leftist artists and authors;
he preferred for instance MKhAT that was traditional.240 This led to speculations that
239
Stalin liked Bulgakov's view of a united and undivided Russian Empire (edinuyu i nedelimuyu),
though for him it was the USSR that should be undivided (Dnevnik. Pis'ma 1914-1940, p 196).
240
Stalin did not approve Meyerhold's experiments. Nor did Bulgakov, who writes "a hole instead of a
scene […] and in front of the wall a construction … the carpenters of the theatre are walking around as if
they were at home and it takes long time before one understands if the play has already started or not … –
You were born too late – said the futurist. – No it was Meyerhold who was born to early …. – Meyerhold
is genius!!... – Never mind…. I am a spectator. Theatre is for me. I want to see the theatre I understand.”
вместо сцены – дыра […] А перед стеной сооружение … Театральные плотники, как дома, ходят в
зад и вперед в долго нельзя понять, началось уже действие – или нет….Вы опоздали родиться –
сказал мне футурист. Нет, это Мейерхольд поспешил родиться. Мейерхольд гений!! – завывал
футурист ... мне все равно … Я – зритель. Театр для меня. Желаю ходить в понятный театр ("Stolitsa v Bloknote Biomekhanicheskaya Glava", in Volshebny Fonar', pp 554sq, my translation ). See also
125
Bulgakov was Stalin's favourite and therefore was not sent to a concentration camp as
so many other writers. However the hardships Bulgakov experienced with the publishing of his texts and the setting up of his plays do not support this view.
Back to the beginning of the inquiry
When introducing the theme of this dissertation I pointed to the similarities between the
cases of Mikhail Bulgakov and Salman Rushdie. Rushdie mentioned these similarities
himself and they have been made the object of an analysis by G. Lucas in a Master Essay. Now it is time at last to describe both the similarities and the dissimilarities between the cases of the two authors against the background of the results of my study.
The first similarity is that both authors have questioned the dominant interpretation
of the human condition made by two totalitarian ideologies (Soviet Communism and
Orthodox Islamism respectively). There is, however, a clear difference between their
ways of questioning these interpretations. Bulgakov is vindicating traditional ideas and
values that were far from acceptable to radical guardians of the Bolshevik doctrine,
while Rushdie has been introducing radical and unorthodox views of Mahomet that are
unacceptable to traditional guardians of Islam.
In both cases the two authors were exposed to menaces from mighty actors. These
menaces took, however, different forms. Rushdie was threatened by a fatwa exhorting
all Muslims to take his life. The menace to Bulgakov was never defined explicitly but
he knew very well what could happen to a Soviet citizen who expressed unorthodox
views. The physical situation of the two authors was also different. Bulgakov lived in a
country of closed borders. Rushdie was and is living in an international environment,
where he can move freely thanks to his supporters.
The two authors had to find ways of escaping from the threats. Rushdie was and is
able to find hiding-places with the help of influential friends in various parts of the
world. Bulgakov tried to get the permission to leave the Soviet Union but this application was always refused. He became a kind of an "inner emigrant" (Vospominaniya o
Mikhaile Bulgakove 2006, p 437 and p 441). He made a virtual trip to another place in
another time by writing "The Pilate Novel" as a part of his sunset novel The Master and
Margarita, a literary work used by Rushdie as one of his two models for his own great
novel.
Finally, it can again be said that the cases of the two authors illustrate the role of the
artist in society. According to Lucas they "present the rebellious, uncompromising figure of the artist, and they criticise and abuse the masses for their thoughtless acceptance
of one man's, or institution's, vision of the 'truth'" (see p 1). In my view, the role of Bulgakov in the Soviet Union was not that of an uncompromising artist (he was often
obliged to retreat from his original views) nor was he of a rebellious character. What he
instead tried to do was to preserve a number of traditional values and ideas that were
important to him. Doing so he certainly disliked the masses for their thoughtless acceptance of one institution's vision of what was regarded as "truth".
To vindicate traditional ideas and values in the Soviet Union and to criticize view
and values supported by the regime, particularly in the days of Stalin, was a great and
above p 61 and footnote 14. Both Stalin and Bulgakov were of the opinion that theatre was a place to rest
and that a play must be entertaining and understandable.
126
courageous achievement, indeed. Bulgakov's will to accomplish this task gave him
strength to survive as a creative writer under very unfavourable conditions.
127
128
Bibliography
Primary sources:
Bulgakov, M. 1988. "Autobiography". In: Soviet Literature, no.7, pp. 7-10.
Bulgakov, M. 1997. Dnevnik. Pisma 1914 -1940. Ed. by V. I Losev. Moscow: Sovremeny pisatel.
Bulgakov, M. 1989. Pisma. Zhizneopisaniye v dokumentakh. Ed. by V.I. Losev and V.V
Petelin. Moscow: Sovremennik.
Bulgakov, M. 1989-1990. Sobraniye sochineny v pyati tomakh, vol. 1-5. Ed. by G.S
Gots et al. Moscow: Khudozhestvenaya literatura.
Belozerskaya, L. 1989. Vospominaniya. Moscow: XXXX.
Cicero, De re publica VI with an English translation by K.W.Keyes. 1928/1948. In: The
Loeb Classical Library, London: William Heinemann and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, pp. 256-283.
Josephus Flavius, Istoria Ioudaikou polemou pros Romaios ("The Jewish War") with an
English translation by H.St.J.Thackerey. 1927/1997. In: The Loeb Classical Library,
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 200-377.
Plato, Alkibiades I with an English translation by R.M.Lamb. 1927/1955. In: The Loeb
Classical Library, London: William Heinemann and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 95-223.
Plato, Kriton with an English translation by H.N.Fowler. 1914/1947. In: The Loeb Classical Library, London: William Heinemann and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, pp. 147-191.
P'esy 1920-kh godov. 1989. Ed by A.A. Ninov. Leningrad: Iskusstvo.
Volshebny Fonar. 2001. Ed. by B.M Akatkin et al. Voronezh: Izdatelstvo im. E.A.
Bolkhovitinova.
Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove. 1988. Ed. by E.S. Bulgakova and S.A.Lyandres,
Moscow: Sovetsky pisatel.
Vospominaniya o Mikhaile Bulgakove. 2006. Ed. by V.I. Losev. Moscow: Izdatelstvo
ACT/Astrel.
129
English translations of works by Bulgakov:
The Heart of a Dog. 1968. Translated, with an Introducion by Michael Glenny. New
York: A Helen and Kurt Wolff book, Harcourt, Brace &World, Inc.
The Master and Margarita.1967/1981. Translated from the Russian by Michael Glenny.
London: The Harvill Press and New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc.
"The White Guard. A Play in Four Acts." (= The Days of the Turbins). 1979/1991.
Translated by Michael Glenny. In: Michael Bulgakov. Six Plays. Introducted by
L.Milne. London: Mehuen, pp. 1-90.
The White Guard. 1996. Translated by Michael Glenny. London: Collin-Harvill.
Secondary sources:
Barratt, A. 1987. Between Two Worlds: The Master and Margarita. Oxford: Clarendon.
Beatie, B. and P. Powell. 1981. ”Bulgakov, Dante and Relativity". In: CanadianAmerican Slavic Studies, vol. 15, pp. 250-269.
Belobrovtseva, I. 1997. Roman Mikhaila Bulgakova ”Master i Margarita”: Konstruktivnyye princypy organizacyi teksta. Tallinn: XXXX.
Belobrovtseva, I. and S. Kuljus. 2004. Roman Mikhaila Bulgakova ”Master i Margarita”: Opyt kommentariya. Tallinn: XXXX.
Bobrov, S. 1998 ”’Master i Margarita’: Ershalaim i/ili Moskva?”. In: Bulgakovsky
sbornik, vol. III, Tallinn: XXXX, pp. 3-56.
Chudakova, M. 1991. ”Bulgakov i ego Interpretatory”. In: Mikhail Bulgakov: Sovremennyye tolkovaniya k 100 – letiyu… Sbornik obzorov, Moscow: XXXX, pp. 5-24
Curtis, J.A.E. 1987. Bulgakov’s last decade. The writer as hero. Cambridge...: Cambridge University Press.
Curtis, J.A.E. 1991. Manuscripts don’t burn. London: Bloomsbury.
Daniel-Rops, H. (pseudonym for J.Ch.H. Pétiot). 1961. La vie quotidienne en Palestine
au temps de Jésus. Paris: XXXX.
Daniel-Rops, H. 1945. Historie Sainte: Jésus et son temps. Paris: XXXX.
Dictionnaire d’ archéologie Chrétienne et de liturgie. 1935/1937. Vol. xii:2, Paris:
Letouzey et Ané.
Drews, A. 1911. The Christ Myth. London: XXXX.
130
Ėlbaum, G. 1981. Analiz iudeyskikh glav Mastera i Margarity M. Bulgakova. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Farrar, F.W. 1897. The Life of Christ. London...: Cassel and Company .
Freedman, D.N. (ed.). 1992. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 5, New York: Doubleday.
Glenny, M. 1981. "Existential Thought in Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita". In: Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15, pp. 238-249.
Greenblatt, S. 1990/1995. ”Culture”. In: F. Lentricchia and Th. McLaughlin (eds.). Critical Terms for Literary Study, 2nd ed. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago
Press, pp. 225-232.
Greenblatt, S. 1980. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: from More to Shakespeare. Chicago
& London: The University of Chicago Press.
Greenblatt, S. 1988. Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in
Renaissance England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Haber, E.C. 1998. Mikhail Bulgakov: the early years. Cambridge, Mass.; London: Harvard University Press.
Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, D. Bahat (ed.). 1990. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Yankovskaya, A. 1992. Treugolnik Volanda. Kiev: XXXX.
Jansson, M. 2002. ”Intertextualities: Pragmatic Aspects and Theoretical Implications”.
In: B. Tysdahl et al. (eds.), English and Nordic Modernisms. Norwich: Norvik Press,
pp. 123-140.
Kostandi, O. 1994. ”K probleme zap.adnykh istochnikov romana M. Bulgakova ’Master
i Margarita’”. In: Bulgakovskiy sbornik II, Tallinn: XXXX, pp. 37 – 46.
Krugovoy, G. 1985. "The Jesus of the Church and the Yeshua of Mikhail Bulgakov". In:
Zapiski Russkoy Akademičeskoy gruppy, Transactions of the Association of RussianAmerican Scholars in the U.S.A., New York: XXXX, vol. xviii, pp. 201-221.
Kuljus, S. 1998. Ėzotericheskie kody romana M.Bulgakova Master i Margarita. Tartu:
XXXX.
Kuljus, S. and V. Chutt. 1994. ”O poėtike M. Bulgakova:’ Master i Margarita’ kak transcendentalny roman”. In: Bulgakovsky sbornik II. Tallinn: XXXX, pp. 20 –25.
Lakshin:, V. 1968. ”Roman M. Bulgakova Master i Margarita”. In: Novy Mir, vol. 6,
pp. 284-311.
131
Lesskis, G. and K. Atarova, 2007. Putevoditel po romanu Mikhaila Bulgakova ”Master
i Margarita”. Moscow: Raduga.
Lowe, N. 2002. Mastering Twentieth-Century Russian History. New York: Palgrave.
Lucas, G. 1997. Healthy Blasphemy: Dissenting Discourses In: Rushdie and Bulgakov,
A Master Essay – see Appendix 1, pp. 128-139.
Mikhail Bulgakov: Sovremennyye tolkovaniya k 100 – letiyu… Sbornik obzorov. 1991.
Moscow: XXXX.
Milne, L. 1990. Mikhail Bulgakov: A Critical Biography. Cambridge...: Cambridge
University Press.
Natov, N. 1981. ”A Bibliography of Works by and about Mikhail A. Bulgakov”. In:
Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15, pp. 457-461.
Pittman, R.H. 1991. The Writer’s Divided Self in Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita. London: Macmillan in asssociation with St. Antony's College, Oxford.
Proffer, E. 1976. An International Bibliography by and about Mikhail Bulgakov. Ann
Arbor: Andis.
Proffer, E. 1984. Bulgakov: Life and Work. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Pruitt, D. 1981. ”St. John and Bulgakov: the model of a parody of Christ”. In: Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15, pp. 312-320.
Renan, E. 1863. Histoire des Origines du Christianisme: Vie de Jésus. Oeuvres Complètes, no. IV. Paris: XXXX.
Shachnazarov, O. 2004. ”Sovetskoye obshchestvo 1917 –1953…”. In: Voprosy Filosofii, vol. 10, pp. 33 – 46.
Sartre, J. 1948/1964. L´existentialisme est un humanisme. Paris: Nagel.
Shentalinsky,V. 2001. Donos na Sokrata. Moscow: XXXX.
Sokolov, B. 2004. Stalin, Bulgakov, Meyerchold…: Kultura pod sen’u velikogo kormchego, Moscow: XXXX.
Strauss, D.F. 1838-1839. Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet, I-II, Dritte Auflage. Tübingen: XXXX.
Subtelny, O. 1988/1989.Ukraine. A History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Tamarchenko, A. 1981. ”Roman na scene: ’Master i Margarita’ v Teatre na Taganke”.
In: Canadian-American Slavic Studies, vol. 15, pp. 355-381.
132
Trundle, R.C. Jr. 1994. Ancient Greek Philosophy: Its Development and Relevance to
Our Time, Aldershot [England]; Bookfield, USA: Avebury.
Wells, H.G. [1920]. Russia in the Shadows. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Vinogradov, I. 1968. ”Zaveshchaniye Mastera”. In: Voprosy literatury, vol. 6, pp. 4381.
Wistrand, E. 1961. Politik och litteratur i antikens Rom. Stockholm...: Almqvist & Wiksell.
Zerkalov, A. 2003. Evangelie Michaila Bulgakova. Moscow: Tekst. (First published as
samizdat in 1979 and thereafter in Ann Arbor: Ardis 1984).
Zerkalov, A. 2004. Master i Margarita: Etika Mikhaila Bulgakova. Moscow: Tekst.
133
Appendix 1
G.Lucas
Healthy Blasphemy: Dissenting Discourses in Rushdie and Bulgakov
A Master Essay reprinted with the permission of the author.
Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and Makhail Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita share a similar concern: the role of the artist in society. Rushdie and Bulgakov see
the artist as one who disrupts the quotidian. Without the occasional contention, a society, or any institution—be it collective or individual—may become complacent and
prone to tyranny. Rushdie and Bulgakov present the rebellious, uncompromising figure
of the artist, and they criticize and abuse the masses for their thoughtless acceptance of
one man’s, or institution’s, vision of the “truth.” The artist offers a different truth, one
that usually precipitates ridicule, abuse, and sometimes death, while providing an expression of heterodoxy. Rushdie and Bulgakov, therefore, admire the artist’s individual
expression of truth, yet both criticize a thoughtless devotion to an institutionalization of
that truth by unthinking masses.
These fundamental issues addressed in both novels furnish examples of the strength and
devotion necessary to challenge general beliefs with creative and original thoughts. This
essay explores the role of the artist presented by Rushdie and Bulgakov as one who
questions the unquestionable in an effort to discover individual meaning despite repressive orthodox ideologies. This meaning, illustrated in artistic expression, provokes a
questioning: “What kind of idea is he? What kind am I?” (Verses 111). A juxtaposition
of several of each novel’s major characters indicates the shared themes of artistic inspiration, production, dissemination, and influence, and illustrates distinct degrees of successful artists and how they transcend their societies’ ideologies.
Divine Contention
“To be born again, . . . first you have to die” sings Gibreel Farishta as he and Saladin
Chamcha hurdle toward earth from an exploding jumbo jet Bostan at the beginning of
The Satanic Verses (3). Indeed, in this literal and metaphorical fall from their previous
lives, they are linked, transformed, metamorphosed, reborn. Chamcha relinquishes his
adopted, high-brow life as an Englishman and becomes bestial in both appearance and
mannerisms, while Gibreel assumes a more angelic form, suiting his divine name: Gibreel the Angel. Equally fantastic is the outset of The Master and Margarita. A typical
spring afternoon at Patriarch’s Ponds turns fatal for Berlioz and Bezdomny (“Homeless”) when the satanic Woland appears. The former literally loses his head, while the
latter (like Farishta and Chamcha) becomes existentially homeless after hearing the tale
of this mysterious stranger—a tale that passes doubt on the current sanctioned ideologies of communist Russia. Woland’s story, like its narrator, begins a chain of fantastic
events, not unlike surviving a fall from an exploded airplane, initiating the process of
death, rebirth, and self-discovery.
134
Woland gives Bezdomny something to ponder, expediting the latter’s homelessness:
Bezdomny wanders away from the intellectual community of shallow pretense that he
had accepted willingly and ends up existentially isolated. He, like Farishta and Chamcha, has died to his previous existence by a satanic disruption, and is, thus, ostracized
from his former community of writers at MASSOLIT and labeled as mad. Later, when
Bezdomny meets master, the latter recognizes Satan’s influence and concludes that
“Both you and I are mad, there’s no point in denying it. He gave you a shock and it sent
you mad” (137). Madness then, similar to many postmodern narratives, becomes the
catch-phrase for difference and non-conformity—for those possessed by the devil’s narrative.
The master confirms both Satan’s narrative and identity: “The man you were talking to
was with Pontius Pilate . . . and now he has paid a call on Moscow” (137). The master’s
proof is in his novel: it parallels Woland’s narration about Pontius Pilate—a novel the
master wrote without having met Woland. This leads one to speculate on the master’s
inspiration. How, as Gibreel will ask in Verses, did his voice get worked and by whom?
Similar to Bezdomny, Gibreel dreams the Mahound sections of Verses after his fall,
and, in so doing, he treads upon sacred ground. Gibreel, also losing his already tenuous
grasp on sanity, imagines himself as God’s postman, the Archangel Gabriel, who must
deliver the word of God to His prophet on earth: Muhammad (King 149). Somehow his
lines become confused and Satan interjects verses into Gibreel’s head, leaving the latter
in a state of consternation: “if the dabba had the wrong markings and so went to the
incorrect recipient, was the dabbawalla to blame?” (Verses 331). Later, Gibreel states,
“God knows whose postman I’ve been,” casting further doubt as to the source of Gibreel’s narrative(s) (Verses 112).
The theme of delivering messages is central to both novels. Another parallel exists between Bezdomny, Farishta, and Chamcha: they are all influential in the public sphere.
Bezdomny is a successful poet for MASSOLIT, Farishta makes popular “theologicals”
playing divinities from different religions in film, and Chamcha is the man with a 1001
voices on British radio. All three are misdirected victims of others’ agendas who deliver
the wrong messages. This satanic influence inspires a metaphysical contention between
previous ideologies and nascent circumstances that bring those beliefs into question.
Dubious “angelicdevilish” sources seemingly influence both the master and Gibreel,
and both have, in effect, created their own other wor(l)ds; yet, at the same time, there is
a feeling that these other worlds are not solely the creations of their respective artists.
Other sources influence both characters, but these sources remain clouded in the fogs of
ambiguity throughout both novels.
The metaphysical question must be stressed: both texts’ ambiguous origins seem to exist beyond their earthly creators as being both true and sacred (Avins 276). Carol Avins,
writing about Master yet applicable to both novels, states that “heretical” narratives,
“shared by the devil and the modern mortal,” confuse and question the historical, mythic, fictional, and sacred narrative (276-77). This ambiguity is never made less opaque in
either novel. This idea provokes Avins’ question: “Where, then, lies the text’s origin—
in the Master’s [and Ivan’s] mind or in Woland’s experience?” (276).
135
The contention: the individual’s narrative versus imposed absolute narrative. If the former represents a product of satanic influence, then what good can come of it? Does Satan present a positive, creative influence, contrary to what traditional religious doctrine
espouses? A look at the master’s and Farishta’s heterodox narratives will begin to answer these questions, to elucidate and provide a model for the individual’s narrative,
and to provide the ontological position of satanic verses.
Yeshua and Mahound
Rushdie writes: “A man who sets himself up is taking on the Creator’s role, according
to one way of seeing things; he’s unnatural, a blasphemer, an abomination of abominations. . . . Or you might simply say: it’s just like being a man” (Verses 49). “Becoming a
man” means, according to Rushdie, having the courage to “understand [himself] and
shape [his future] by arguing and challenging and questioning and saying the unsayable;
not by bowing the knee, whether to gods or to men” (“Faith” 394-95). By not showing
proper obeisance to the powers that be, the poet emulates Satan in his original refusal to
see the world in the way God envisioned it. Salutary change becomes possible when
poets attempt new metaphors—a new language that helps to orient them in the quixotic
universe of possibilities (Edmundson 70). Rushdie and Bulgakov embrace and illustrate
these possibilities by beginning with their archetypal poets.
The ability to control one’s identity begins with language. Yet words have always been
dangerous and have, therefore, been strictly controlled by those who have little tolerance for difference. Words have the ability to repress and rebel, mythologize and mystify, imprison and emancipate. Proffer suggests that myth can represent a powerful, negative force; she cites the Spanish Inquisition as the cause of many deaths in the name of
God (541). One could also add to that example the many Islamic jihads and terrorist
atrocities used to further the goals of Allah, or colonial expansion meant to civilize the
natives. Rushdie and Bulgakov do not question the need for religious expression in humans, but they do wonder at the efficacy of organized, myth-centralized religion (Proffer 541). Rushdie and Bulgakov begin the process of reclaiming language with the master’s novel and Gibreel’s dream.
Ostensibly, Rushdie and Bulgakov are “taking the devil’s part against the God of orthodoxy” to express their devilish gospels (Williams and Khan 253). Williams and Khan
suggest that Verses “is healthily blasphemous,” drawing on “a long line of literary opposition to the fictions favored by the state and church” (253). Not only is it healthy to
cast a skeptical eye on traditional morality and dogma, it is necessary to question the
unquestionable, to doubt rather than embrace blindly if individual expression is ever to
be realized. Perhaps Rushdie, and to a lesser extent Bulgakov, is so despised by many of
the “true believers” not because he invented heretical lies, but because he told the uncompromising truth. This practice, as mentioned above, may be the primary role of the
artist, and Bulgakov and Rushdie, as well as their archetypal inspirations Jesus of Nazareth and Muhammad, want to tell their truths. Rushdie defines this responsibility: “A
poet’s work [is] to name the unnamable, to point at frauds, to take sides, start arguments, shape the world and stop it from going to sleep” (Verses 97).
136
Complicity and conformity, however, represent very real aspects of humanity, but they
are aspects that must be avoided. Both Rushdie (Gibreel) and Bulgakov (the master)
present Mahound and Yeshua as great men who are not immune to human error and
doubt. Mahound is just a man, as Hamza reminds Bilal: “keep your faith for God. The
Messenger is just a man” (105). Indeed, Mahound, the businessman, succumbs momentarily to temptation in accepting Simbel’s deal to acknowledge three other idols alongside Allah. Likewise, Frank states that the master portrays Yeshua strictly as a man not
above realizing fear and doubt, and not Christ, or the Messiah of orthodoxy (292). This
humanizing of Jesus and Muhammad has several implications, two of which are particularly important: they are not infallible, and they can empathize with humanity, sharing that common state (Ericson 23). Ericson stipulates another reason for removing Jesus and Muhammad from deification: it removes the trite and “stale doctrinal formulas”
and revisions the myths (22). In effect, Rushdie and Bulgakov demythologize Jesus and
Muhammad allowing the reader an opportunity to reevaluate the men and not the myths,
making these poets “thoroughly human” (Hart 171). An all-too-common fault among
Christians, writes Ericson, “despite their theology, is to think of Christ as God but not to
be able to visualize Jesus as man” (23). Woland said that Jesus, the man, did exist, and
the master’s story is the proof. Both Bulgakov and Rushdie remove these artists from
any lionizing or deification and present humanity with humans.
When Yeshua Ha-Notsri is first introduced in the chapter “Pontius Pilate,” he has been
arrested and beaten for his simple vision that “there are no evil people on earth” and that
all “will pass into the kingdom of truth and justice” (Master 29, 32). During his subsequent questioning, Yeshua discloses two important details: that he has realized his own
personal truth, “I reached that conclusion in my own mind,” but that that truth has been
“untruthfully” transcribed (fictionalized?) by Matthew the Levite, Yeshua’s only follower (29, 24). Pilate first asks Yeshua about his alleged attempt to incite a crowd to
destroy the temple. Yeshua denies having said this despite the fact that “It is clearly
written down” (24). This represents the first of numerous suggestions in this chapter
that if something is written, then it becomes official, Roman truth. Rome’s truths are
official “facts” and judgments that only need to be recited by those in power to secretaries to become truth: “It only remained to dictate this to the secretary” (30). Pilate’s secretary is present throughout Yeshua’s interrogation, taking minutes until the proceeding
begins to sound unofficial. In the middle of his inquisition, Yeshua uses his obviously
keen intuitive powers to empathize with Pilate’s headache, his thoughts about death,
and his longing for his loyal dog (Haber 396):
“At this moment the truth is chiefly that your head is aching and aching so hard that
you are having cowardly thoughts about death. Not only are you in no condition to talk
to me, but it even hurts you to look at me. . . . ”
The secretary stared at the prisoner, his note-taking abandoned. (26)
Yeshua’s personal truth is incompatible with the official Roman vision which explains
Pilate’s initial thoughts and the secretary’s surprise, causing him to forsake the official
record. This passage also emphasizes the importance of the individual and his situation
in determining the truth. If one, like Pilate, lives in pain from an inner conflict, that pain
will ascribe the reality of his truth. Pilate later learns, only freedom from sanctioned
action may lead to freedom of choice; Pilate’s sin, then, is cowardice in choosing offi-
137
cial truth over his personal freedom. Yeshua’s empathy and his appeal to the hegemon’s
humanity almost succeeds in exculpating him from this situation—that is, until Pilate
discovers another written allegation accusing Yeshua of speaking against Caesar, a perfidy punishable by death. However, Pilate likes this “philosopher” and implicitly offers
him a ultimatum: lie or die.
Yeshua will not, even on pain of death, compromise his truth. This choice represents a
double-edged sword for Yeshua, for it will mean his death guilty of treason, and it will
also test his own philosophy about the goodness of all people (Krugovoy 207). But Yeshua never gives in to temptation; even through the excruciating crucifixion, he maintains his conviction; he does not forsake his truth in spite of any threat to end or hope of
saving his life. Yeshua’s vision is unacceptable to his society, especially the leaders of
the Sanhedrin, represented by Caiaphas. The latter requests the release of a murderer
over Yeshua, knowing that one who kills people is less of a threat than one who could
incite philosophical rebellion: “I shall not allow the faith to be defamed and I shall protect the people!” (38); therefore Yeshua, an enemy of church and state, is unmercifully
killed, but not without first leaving an impression on Pilate and, more importantly, on
Matthew the Levite.
Mahound, like Yeshua, is also unyielding in his truth. He has been asked by Abu Simbel, the Grandee of Jahilia, to include in his religion three, of the over-three-hundred,
idols as worthy of worship beside Allah (Verses 105, 107). Unlike Yeshua, Rushdie
examines Mahound’s suspicious inspiration—the inspiration that produces the satanic
verses. Gibreel must provide guidance to Mahound, yet he is full of profound consternation: “I’m just some idiot actor having a blaenchud nightmare, what the fuck do I know,
yaar, what to tell you, help. Help” (Verses 109). Gibreel, possessed by some force, utters the answer:
Not my voice I’d never know such words I’m no classy speaker never was never will be
but this isn’t my voice it’s a Voice.
Mahound’s eyes open wide, he’s seeing some kind of vision, staring at it, oh, that’s
right, Gibreel remembers, me. He’s seeing me. My lips moving, being moved by.
What, whom? Don’t know, can’t say. Nevertheless, here they are, coming out of my
mouth, up my throat, past my teeth: the Words. (Verses 112)
What is uttered are the satanic verses of the Qur’an: “Have you thought upon Lat,
Uzza, and Manat, the third, the other? . . . They are the exhalted birds, and their
intercession is desired indeed” (Verses 114). This concession to Abu Simbel violates
the major tenant of Islam: “There is no god but Allah” (Guillaume 130).
Mahound’s revelations are now cast into question. Seemingly, Mahound has made this
decision to accept the three idols. Pragmatically, this decision would win him power and
economic security without a struggle; so if he acquiesced on this small point—
conforming to historical and psychological pressures—then he and his God would reign
supreme. At one point Mahound states: “Often, when Gibreel comes, it’s as if he knows
what’s in my heart. It feels to me, most times, as if he comes from within my heart:
from within my deepest places, from my soul” (106). This observation suggests that
Mahound’s desire writes Gibreel, rather than vice versa. Simawe suggests that the pas-
138
sive Gibreel acts as a channel for Mahound’s political, psychological, and moral needs
(190). Does the individual, then, derive a truth without the help of the absolute Forms or
God? Bardolph asks: “When can one be sure that the cosmic vision is not just a narcissistic projection? Or even the projection of other people’s dreams and desires which the
angel-poet, sponge-like, has absorbed?” (4). Neither Bardolph nor Rushdie ever answer
these questions, but certainly the individual desires of Mahound seem to motivate the
words of Gibreel.
It now appears to Mahound the businessman that Allah has granted his divine sanction
to Abu Simbel’s deal. This “desolating triumph of the businessman” turns Mahound’s
world into chaos, precipitating violence against his followers in “a night of masks”
(Verses 115, 117). These masks parallel Bulgakov’s smoky hazes and attars of roses in
Jerusalem that obfuscate truth and confuse direction. These masks also represent the
oppression that conceals individuality and truth.
Ironically, Abu Simbel’s wife and priestess of Al-Lat, Hind, provides Mahound with
direction:
“I am your equal,” she repeats, “and also your opposite. I don’t want you to become
weak. You shouldn’t have done what you did.”
“But you will profit,” Mahound replies bitterly. “There’s no threat now to your temple revenues.”
“You miss the point, . . . If you are for Allah, I am for Al-Lat. And she doesn’t believe your God when he recognizes her. Her opposition to him is implacable, irrevocable, engulfing. The war between us cannot end in truce. . . . Between Allah and the
Three there can be no peace. I don’t want it. I want to fight. To the death; that is the
kind of idea I am. What kind are you?” (121)
Hind realizes what Mahound does not: an idea needs an adversary to keep it strong.
Since Hind worships Al-Lat, she requires her opposite, Allah, to keep her strong. Mahound has accepted Al-Lat destroying any contention, making his truth weak. Hind,
because she is the Yin to Mahound’s Yang, teaches him about the devastating effects of
compromise. There can be no peace between Mahound’s vision and the past: the ties
must be broken; Mahound must assert his new metaphors—water must wash away the
sand. Allah must not accept Al-Lat, but must embrace the opposition and cast her out of
His garden.
Mahound returns to Mount Cone, the scene of his communion with the Archangel, for
another session of revelation. Mahound realizes his mistake and repudiates this verse
attributing it to Shaitan. However, Gibreel remains doubtful as to the verse’s source:
“From my mouth, both the statement and the repudiation, verses and converses, universes and reverses, the whole thing, and we all know how my mouth got worked”
(Verses 123). Gibreel’s statement alludes to the initial uttering of the verse as well as
the dubiousness of the source. Was his mouth worked by Mahound’s desires, the mysterious narrator, or both? Mahound will no longer be tempted by compromise—the businessman has been silenced, and the satanic verses have been repudiated: “The last time,
it was Shaitan” (Verses 123).
139
The discovery of self, here, seems to be the result of a dialectic between what exists and
what is attempting to find a voice. The latter, what Arenberg calls the “daimonic,” contains a seed comprised of a passion to survive and grow. The growth of ideas, or an individual truth, will survive to fruition if it can withstand the attack of the question:
“What kind of idea are you?” This question must be answered beyond doubt if the poet’s truth is “the kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be
smashed to bits; but, the hundredth time, will change the world” (Verses 335). The poet
must decide if his truth is “the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself
to society, aims to find a niche, to survive” or the kind that is “uncompromising; absolute; pure” (Verses 335, 500).
Mahound’s voice breaks the dichotomy and is less certain: he represents a golden mean
between excess and defect (Simawe 194). Mahound, like Yeshua, is more human, not
absolute and pure. While considering the expression of this vision, he concerns himself
with the needs of his community as well. Yeshua wants to help Pilate alleviate his suffering; he even shows compassion for his torturer Mark Muribellum: “If I were to talk
to him, . . . I am sure that he would change greatly” (Master 29). Yeshua offers to help
his torturer like Mahound shows compassion to those in Jahilia that attempted to wrong
him. These deeds of compassion answer Rushdie’s second question that he puts to the
new ideas of poets: “What happens when you win? When your enemies are at your mercy: how will you act then?” (Verses 467).
Manuscripts
The “What kind of idea are you?” theme echoes prophetically throughout both The Satanic Verses and The Master and Margarita. Rushdie aims his question, states Suleri,
primarily at Islamic culture and racial/national questions (607). More significantly, it
can question, within the novel’s context, many other ideologies; only truth can withstand an onslaught of such a probing question asked by truth seekers. “What kind of
idea are you?” leads to other questions, like, how accurate is a text that supposedly
holds the truth when it was written down by one who is less than perfect? A new dimension is added when one realizes that Jesus and Muhammad were only the purveyors of
the truth—they were not the ones to record it. Now how accurate is it? For that matter,
can language accurately encompass any idea?
When Pilate interrogates Yeshua, the latter complains about Matthew the Levite:
This man follows me everywhere with nothing but his goatskin parchment and writes
incessantly. But I once caught a glimpse of that parchment and I was horrified. I had not
said a word of what was written there. I begged him, “Please burn this parchment of
yours!” But he tore it out of my hands and ran away. (25)
Bulgakov portrays Matthew as inept and simple, as one who has tremendous sympathy
and good intentions, yet can never seem to accomplish what he sets out to do (Proffer
538). Proffer points out that, contrary to what Yeshua says as he dies—“Glory to the
Magnanimous Hegemon!”—Aphranius tells Pilate that Yeshua said something about
cowardice being the greatest sin—“a saying imputed to Yeshua, one which [Matthew]
has on his parchment, the very same parchment that Yeshua swore contained nothing he
140
had actually said” (546). Yeshua will not lie; this statement is most likely true because
he refuses to do so at the cost of his life; thus, it can be safely deduced that he has told
the truth about Matthew’s manuscript. Therefore, the manuscript is inaccurate (Proffer
546).
Similarly, Salman the Persian, rather than suffering from foolishness, is a shrewd
doubter, who “on account of his scholastic advancement was made Mahound’s official
scribe” (Verses 365). Salman does his job well until it looks as if Mahound is making up
“divine” rules to benefit his social and political position. Salman remains faithful until
his own revelation one night in a dream when he found himself hovering over Mahound
on Mt. Cone. Unsure of his dream identity, whether Gibreel or Shaitan, and excited by
the ambiguity, Salman begins to change Mahound’s recitation:
“Mahound did not notice the alterations. So there I was, actually writing the Book, or
rewriting, anyway, polluting the word of God with my own profane language. But, good
heavens, if my poor words could not be distinguished from the Revelation by God’s
own Messenger, then what did that mean? What did that say about the quality of the
divine poetry?” (367)
Like Matthew the Levite, Salman the Persian did not represent the prophet accurately.
However, according to Bardolph, the scribe risks losing the magic of the original idea
when attempting to take it down on paper (5). Additionally, Salman the Persian and
Matthew the Levite, the second they inserted their “own profane language,” became an
active part of the creative process, opening the door to fiction as a version of Mahound’s words, which are a version of Gibreel’s words, which are a version of God’s
and/or Satan’s words (Corcoran 159). In essence, the profane words of humans have
become divine.
These incidents suggest the difference between the uncorrupted word of the prophet and
the historical church (Krugovoy 207). Both writers, regardless of their motivations,
have distorted the words of their poets. This twisting, asserts Tumanov, illustrates the
way that churches and their parishioners have misunderstood and/or abused the messages of their poets Jesus and Muhammad (57). This distortion of the truth begins the history of intellectual oppression, of satanic verses, that is propagated by the church and
state. Berlioz’s communist propaganda, Chamcha’s perfidious verses to Farishta, Ivan’s
anti-religious poem, the policemen’s racism and violence, and other activities begin to
limit personal freedom and expression. These instances, perhaps, represent other satanic
verses in that they limit personal expression rather than make it possible.
Proffer suggests that Matthew never really understands Yeshua and, as Yeshua tells
Pilate, inaccurately translates his words (538). Besides being a poor scribe, Matthew
shows no compassion in his readiness to kill to avenge his dead master, further distorting Yeshua’s teaching (Proffer 539). Proffer’s observation about Matthew may also
be applied to Salman the Persian. He cannot understand Mahound’s compassion for his
community; Mahound does not ignore his people’s needs in the expression of his own
truth. Couple this misunderstanding with his changing of Mahound’s words, and it
would seem that Salman represents Submission’s first blasphemer.
141
While the circumstances are different, the essential question is the same: if it is not the
word of God, then whose word is it? All sources seem to point to God’s antithesis, the
archetypal perverter of the word: Satan.
Disciples and the Felix Culpa
God’s plan, illustrates Bulgakov, includes “evil” and the ability to choose. Evil is necessary for two reasons: Woland states that good needs a foil to remain good, for what is
light without shadow? And what is called blasphemous gives individuals something to
think about in order to decide the right path for themselves. Evil is fortunate in that it
necessitates choice and thought. In this way, satanic verses can be looked at from the
point of view of a felix culpa. Bulgakov illustrates this in his epigram from Goethe’s
Faust:
“Say at last—who art thou?
“That Power I serve
Which wills forever evil
Yet does forever good.”
In the paradox of the felix culpa, Satan desires to cause harm to God’s creation, yet all
of his schemings only result in a good outcome in a universe ruled by an omniscient,
beneficent God. In light of this idea, both Verses and Master are less heretical and their
truths (ultimately the same) can be understood. For if Satan (Woland) works for God in
the latter, why not the former?
In Bulgakov’s work, Woland is an integral part of God’s design, for, by the chaotic actions of Woland, order is able to be, once again, divined. Woland acts, according to
Proffer, as a physical manifestation of the characters’ consciences and motivates them
to do the right thing, at least for the time being (532). Bulgakov’s Satan is able to cut
through the façades of assumed morality and comme il faut to get to the reality underneath. He recognizes the fact that he is a necessary part of the divine workings of the
universe, a fact that Matthew (and many orthodox believers) cannot understand: evil is a
mechanistic necessity of good that always demands what kind of idea am I? Woland
says to Matthew near the end of Master: “Think, now: where would your good be if
there were no evil, and what would the world look like without shadow?” (348). Satan,
therefore, fulfills his role of inspiration in performing God’s will. Essentially he is
God’s representative as a physical manifestation in Bulgakov and a metaphorical one in
Rushdie; Woland, states Haber, works through darkness to denounce and shatter the
status quo in order to encourage and inspire liberty (403). “Woland’s rôle,” states Sahni,
curiously enough, “is that of an Archangel of the Master and Margarita” (195); Ericson
agrees that Satan was the inspiration for the master’s novel (22). Gillespie calls Woland
an administrator of divine justice who is more akin to the Old Testament’s Lucifer than
the New Testament’s Satan, and Glenny sees him as an integral aspect of a dual godhead (89, 247).
Satan/Woland requires people who meet him to act, or react, to his attacks on their comfortable, rational existence. Woland battles against entropy, sloth, and all of those who
prostitute themselves to be successful in a material world of fake values. He is the
142
“Spirit of Truth” that shuns façades and clears the way for individuals to find their own
truths. Even further, he prods non-thinkers into thinking, makes them ask the question:
What kind of idea am I?
The various critical views of Woland and his purpose all seem to agree that he is an
agent of God’s will that makes individual thought and action possible in an attempt to
find a unique individual voice. Woland also acts as restorer, producing the master’s
novel from the fire; Woland resurrects the master’s truth from destruction: “Manuscripts
don’t burn,” he states as he presents the restored novel to its owner (281). But the master remains nonplused: “I have no more dreams and my inspiration is dead” (286). The
master’s acquiescence to societal forces earns him peace at the novel’s end, but not
light after he and Margarita swallow poisonous wine (Proffer 563).
Gibreel Farishta also takes his own life and the life of his love, Allie Cone, after he, too,
fails as an artist. Farishta’s life has been written by others; he is the victim of others’
narratives and assumes the role of spokesperson for each one throughout Verses
(McLaren 64). Caught between visions of lust, Rosa Diamond, the Curtain’s whores,
and Mirza Saeed Akhtar, and visions of spirit, the absolute, one God and his word
which brings history to an end, Gibreel longs for an answer from these disparate voices
he hears in his dreams, yet he remains passive to their desires: “What is an archangel
but a puppet? . . . The faithful bend us to their will. We are forces of nature and they,
our masters” (Verses 460). Gibreel is also used by Sisodia and his ilk for monetary
gains from his popular “theologicals.” When Farishta tries to incorporate his dream
experiences of Mahound and Ayesha into films, he loses popularity, a further victim of
a society that desires a steady diet of brainless palaver. He becomes the victim of others’
verses, including Chamcha’s, and, Othello-like, kills Allie and himself to find peace, but
not light.
Simawe affirms that the archangel Gibreel might allegorically represent Imagination:
“an ever-expanding energy that keeps rupturing and bursting all kinds of idolized theories, ideologies, and religions” (196). Like the master, Farishta also parallels Woland.
He attempts to translate to his society a retelling of the myth of Muhammad, just as the
master’s heterodox novel retells the story of Jesus and Pilate. The master and Farishta
both parallel Satan in his attempt to awaken a somnambulant society. Both Farishta and
the master are muses for those who are willing to listen.
If Farishta and the master represent muses or archangels, who then are their prophets?
Both Ivan Nikolayich Poniryov and Saladin Chamcha are defined by Rushdie’s epigraph from Daniel Defoe’s The History of the Devil:
Satan, being thus confined to a vagabond, wandering, unsettled condition, is without
any certain abode; for though he has, in consequence of his angelic nature, a kind of
empire in the liquid waste of air, yet this is certainly part of his punishment, that he is . .
. without any fixed place, or space, allowed him to rest the sole of his foot upon. (Verses’ epigraph)
Both characters estrange themselves in an attempt to adopt an alien identity: Ivan takes
the name Bezdomny in his attempt to become an atheist, communist poet; Chamcha
forsakes his Indian heritage in order to become a proper Englishman. Chamcha, too,
143
changes his name from the Indian Salahuddin Chamchawala, to a shorter, anglicized
version Saladin Chamcha. Both Chamcha and Bezdomny are shaken by a fantastic
event at the beginning of their stories, wind up in a hospital somewhere in the middle,
and end up on a path to self identity, proving Farishta’s statement “to be born again,
first you have to die” true.
Ivan, despite his efforts, does not make a good communist poet. His poem, commissioned by Berlioz and MASSOLIT, does not question Christ’s existence, like a good
atheist should, but shows Ivan’s ability to be receptive and open to new ideas, despite
their sources. Perhaps this is why Woland narrates the first part of the master’s novel to
the comme-il-faut Berlioz and Bezdomny: to show the futility of clinging to beliefs as
stifling as Berlioz’s. Woland’s narrative and Berlioz’s subsequent death push Bezdomny to question his adopted ideologies and land him—near the master—in Stravinsky’s
asylum, truly homeless. Hart suggests that the devil’s verses have “been planted in fertile soil” (172). Ivan, now that he has glimpsed a vision of different truth, can no longer
survive in the current communist zeitgeist.
Similarly, after his fall from the Bostan with Gibreel, Chamcha begins to realize that he
does not belong in his adopted country. He begins to assume the corporeal shape of evil,
simultaneously stripped of his physical and social identity (Verstraete 329). Yet the
metamorphosis depicts the culmination of a dehumanization that began with his career
as a voice without a body on British radio and television, and likens him to the homeless
vagabond Satan. Arrested, beaten, and dehumanized by the British authorities, Chamcha
lands in the hospital, a subjugated, estranged animal still trying to accept his circumstances with a British stiff upper lip. In their respective hospitals, Chamcha and Ivan
meet other outcasts.
Bezdomny is further influenced by his encounter with the master, inmate no. 118. The
master relates his story about his novel, Margarita, and his fall, while Ivan tells of his
brush with Woland. From this point, Ivan becomes even more receptive to the master’s
words, so much so, in fact, that he dreams the execution of Yeshua. Proffer concludes
that the master’s novel, Woland’s narration, and Ivan Bezdomny’s dream all share similar styles and content which “implies that there is one truth which may be divined by the
true artist” (537-8). This also demonstrates the influence of a great mind on those who
are open to questioning their beliefs.
Similarly, Chamcha continues to lose his carefully constructed order while he changes
physically. His hospital ward contains others like himself: immigrants who, his manticore companion explains, have been transformed by the words of the natives. “They
describe us,” he explains, “That’s all. They have the power of description, and we succumb to the pictures they construct” (Verses 168). By the chapter’s end, Saladin heads
“east east east” with his new, black friend who perhaps symbolizes the darkness that he
has tried so long to forsake in his own life (171). This darkness embraced by Chamcha
is focused on Gibreel in the form of verses. Chamcha’s change forces him to discard his
Englishness (with his wife and career) and focus all of his contempt toward the man that
allowed him to be taken away and brutalized: Gibreel Farishta. Kerr suggests that
Chamcha realizes his humanity by hating, by embracing that satanic aspect of himself
that he has so long despised and repressed (178). He restores his physical appearance
only by acting through hate, by playing Iago to Gibreel’s Othello. He breaks his English
144
conditioning by exploiting Gibreel’s insecurity and jealousy when it comes to Allie
Cone. Yet, only when Gibreel ironically and unexpectedly saves Saladin from the burning Shaandaar Café is Chamcha ready to forgive and be born again.
Both Verses and Master end with the rebirth of Chamcha and Ivan respectively. Ivan,
true to his vow, renounces his poetry and becomes a historian, while Chamcha returns
to India and embraces his community, his family, and his humanity.
The master and Margarita visit Ivan on their way to eternity. Ivan promises to forgo
“any more stupid poetry” in lieu of “something quite different” (361) and decides he no
longer needs to remain in Stravinsky’s clinic: “perhaps I’m not so sick after all” (362).
The master symbolically passes the banner to Ivan, making him responsible for his own
individuality and his own voice: “Farewell, disciple” (362). Master’s epilogue shows a
Moscow returned to the godless decadence that characterized it before Woland’s visit:
“the events described in this truthful account have faded from most people’s memories—with a few exceptions” (380). Ivan, now professor Poniryov of the Institute of
History and Philosophy, has remained true to his vow with the master. He has given up
the prestige and its concomitant material advantages to become a professor on society’s
periphery (Weeks 58). Ivan has assumed an aspect of normalcy: he has become a productive member of his community, but the change is only another façade. Dreams of his
fantastic experiences still plague Ivan during Easter, symptomatic, asserts Haber, of one
who has glimpsed a higher vision but remains a member of a stifling social order (407).
Ivan’s continuing struggle, caught between individual beliefs and societal values, takes
courage to endure. He as a teacher may now influence the minds of a new generation to
embrace their individual natures—to think and not blindly subscribe to another’s narrative and vision of truth. He is now in a position to utter his own satanic verses which
may initially cause suffering, but ultimately emancipate.
Chamchawala’s freedom begins with the reconciliation with his dying father, Changez.
Indeed, changes and multiplicity are symbolized by a wonderous lamp of wishes and
possibilities—all Saladin must do is rub the lamp and believe in its power. The lamp’s
potential and the atmosphere of India begin to affect Saladin:
Saladin felt hourly closer to many old, rejected selves, many alternative Saladins—or
rather Salahuddins—which had split off from himself as he made various life choices,
but which had apparently continued to exist, perhaps in the parallel universes of quantum theory. (523)
Chamcha begins to realize that death brings “out the best in people. . . . We are still capable of exaltation . . . in spite of everything, we can still transcend” (527). While only
through death can one be born again, it first violently disrupts and terrifies before rebirth; the ambiguity of his father’s last minutes—“Why the horror? And, whence that
final smile?”—makes Chamcha existentially aware of his own mortality and forces him
to act (532). Changez’ death teaches Salahuddin terror and allows him to embrace his
own voice not defined by England, the Qur’an, or any other absolute source, save himself and his postmodern lamp of possibilities.
One of Chamchawala’s last actions in the novel is the rubbing of the lamp that he inherited from his father. This action produces, as if by magic, Zeenat Vakil:
145
His old English life, its bizarreries, its evils, now seemed very remote, even irrelevant,
like his truncated stage name. “About time,” Zeeny approved when he told her of his
return to Salahuddin. “Now you can stop acting at last.” Yes, this looked like the start of
a new phase . . . an orphaned life, like Muhammad’s; like everyone’s. A life illuminated
by a strangely radiant death, which continued to glow, in the mind’s eye, like a sort of
magic lamp. (534)
Salahuddin, unlike Gibreel, receives another chance because he has embraced his humanity. He has accepted the inevitability of change and the multiplicity of voices
around him, but while he listens to all, he lets no single absolute voice control his life.
McLauren submits that while “we freefall through the worlds of Rushdie’s imagination,
we are forced to take the responsibility for our own readings, our own choices” (64).
While Rushdie and Bulgakov may not offer readers any truth, they both stress the importance of community and empathy in composing one’s own truth. Chamchawala, like
Ivan, must see himself in relation to his community and his own humanity. The satanic
element is part of that humanity and must not be ignored, but should be embraced and
questioned and allowed to have a voice. This satanic element allows growth and change,
both of which are integral to human life. For if an absolute truth is allowed to rule one’s
life, change, growth, and history itself will come to an end, like in Rushdie’s nightmare
vision of the Imam. If one knows the absolute truth, then what would be the point of
living other than to convert heathens, to banish Satan, and stop thought altogether? A
constant dialectic between new and different verses provides the necessary impetus for
growth and individuality.
A new look at Bulgakov’s epigram becomes necessary since evil and good have diverse
meanings depending upon who defines them. Tyrannical, absolute powers see evil as
that which questions the truth, while good follows and does not question. Bulgakov and
Rushdie suggest that the opposite is true: evil is blind conformity, while good asks what
kind of idea. So the epigram’s paradox might be interpreted as taking on a dual role
where both views are considered. Satan wills forever evil, i.e. he questions and causes
others to question the powers that be, and, by so doing does forever good by making
sure that humans do not go to sleep and relinquish their voices. The “Power,” then, is
art.
The “Power,” in a more orthodox sense, could also mean God. Salman’s alterations to
Mahound’s words are, according to the felix culpa, what God meant to have in the
Qur’an in the first place, just as Matthew’s “fictions” have become the cornerstone of
Christianity—all according to the plan. Though they both distorted the words of the
artists, the literalness of the texts is unimportant; the quest for truth must take place
within the individual’s soul. Wright posits that one should not consider the verses in the
gospels and the suras false because of their alterations, for the fundamental messages
remain intact (1169). These verses were not written to be historical artifacts, but to help
people discover their identities (Wright 1169). Even if Farishta’s and the master’s stories are fictions, in the light of the felix culpa, they are God-serving. Evil and blasphemy, as Woland states, are necessary appendages of good.
Healthy Blasphemy
146
I have argued here that Mahound and Yeshua represent successful artists. These archetypal poets positively influence all the novels’ characters, including the reader. Their
struggle to be heard, their will to withstand temptation, and their courage to maintain
their beliefs whatever the consequences make them figures to be admired and emulated
more so than the product of their struggle. Rushdie respects those like Yeshua and Mahound who “attempt radical reformations of language, form and ideas, those that attempt to do what the word novel seems to insist upon: to see the world anew. I am well
aware that this can be a hackle-raising, infuriating attempt” (“Faith” 393). Rushdie, like
his character Mahound, has stood relatively firm in his expression of truth, despite the
oppressive fatwa.
The blind conformity to any notion, belief, or ideal without consulting the inner artist
seems to be the ultimate evil. Arenberg states that “the master demonstrates that each
man’s salvation lies within himself,” and that “Bulgakov recognized that men follow the
path of least resistance, denying their own imaginative capabilities in favor of institutionalized ideologies, organized religion, and conventional morality” (123, 121). Proffer
agrees, for she submits that the coming of the storm after the crucifixion of Yeshua
“presages . . . the coming of a new religion, Christianity,” which will no longer require
humanity to question—just follow (553). But faith in “gospel truth” is, at least for
Rushdie and Bulgakov, never enough—it leaves those unfortunate non-thinkers open to
all kinds of satanic verses.
© 1997 All Rights Reserved
by Gerald R. Lucas
Last updated: 02.06.01
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154

A new study on Bulgakov

Transcription

Similar documents

Johnny Tremain by Esther Forbes Objectives

BIBLIONNE

Kiev, Ukraine

Historical Maps of Europe

The Kabakov retrospective in Moscow revealed more about

frankfurt rights list 2013

1 - 7 Summer 2014 Reading List

The power of

10 Books from Holland (Frankfurt Book Fair 2014)

Frankfurt 2014.docx - Lippincott Massie McQuilkin