Diaboliada
Continues.
“…And he died--- with
a futile thirst for vengeance,
With a secret vexation of
deceived hopes…”
M. Yu. Lermontov.
Let
me remind the reader about the already mentioned here and by Bulgakov Russian
Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (reigned 1645-1676). This is what Klyuchevsky writes
about him in general historical terms:
“The composition of his mind and heart was reflected with a
surprising accuracy in his stout, even corpulent figure, with a low forehead,
white face adorned by a handsome beard, with puffy red cheeks, blond hair, with
meek facial features and soft eyes… It was this tsar who found himself standing
in the torrents of the most important domestic and external movements.
Multifaceted relations, old and new, Swedish, Polish, Crimean, Turkish,
Western-Russian, social, ecclesiastic, --- became acute, met and intertwined as
though by deliberate design, turned into urgent business demanding immediate
resolution, refusing to wait in the historical line, and above them all, like a
common key to all, stood the main question: whether to remain faithful to
native antiquity or to start taking lessons from strangers? Tsar Alexei… did
not break with the former nor turned his back on the latter… Tsar Alexei could
not stand at the head of the new movement and give it a certain direction, find
the necessary people for it, show them the ways and the methods
of action. He would not mind plucking the blooms of foreign culture, but
did not wish to soil his hands doing the dirty work of sowing these plants on
the Russian soil… He did not propose any governing ideas for reform, but he
helped the first reformers to come out with their own ideas, allowed them to
feel free and opened for them a fairly broad road of activity…
The first moment of the reformist movement, when the leaders did
not decide yet on breaking with their past and destroying the existing order…
He [Alexei Mikhailovich] was standing firmly with one foot in his native Orthodox
antiquity, while his other foot was already brought over the dividing line, and
thus he would remain to the end in this indecisive transitional position.”
V. O. Klyuchevsky. A Course of
Russian History.
Klyuchevsky
writes about the tsar’s meek features and his well-earned nickname The Meekest of all Russian tsars.
Klyuchevsky notes that even when he entered the state of rage, he would come
out of it soon enough. Apparently, Alexei Mikhailovich, like Korotkov, suffered
from the same affliction, that is, of alternating states.
But
let us now return to the question Who is
Dyrkin?, which we asked before our educational digression into the
seventeenth century. The question is made even more interesting by the fact
that it was the “pale youth” Lermontov who first struck Dyrkin on the ear with
his attaché case, before Korotkov contributed to the fearsome boss’s beating
with his twopence.
So,
who is Dyrkin? This extremely rare
Russian surname provides a strikingly easy phonetic association with the
nickname Palkin [“of the stick”], received by the Russian
Emperor Nicholas I (reigned 1825-1855), whose full name was Nikolai Pavlovich
[pronounced as “Palych,” hence, Palkin] Romanov. Nicholas I was the one
who had five members of the 1825 Decembrist revolt hanged, and many others sent
to hard labor in Siberia. He is the one whom M. A. Bulgakov accuses of causing
the death of A. S. Pushkin by deliberately deciding not to prevent his duel. (See
my posted Segment XI, regarding Bulgakov’s play Alexander Pushkin)…
We
know already that in Diaboliada Bulgakov
“introduces” a large number of historical personalities, such as Tsar Alexei
Mikhailovich, Oliver Cromwell, Jan Sobiesky, and Napoleon. Like no other
writer, Bulgakov has been having a lot of imaginative fun writing his works.
And so, he has decided to take revenge on Nicholas I Palkin for the death of
Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin by letting the Russian officer Mikhail Yurievich
Lermontov (the pale youth) beat up
the Emperor of Russia (the fearsome Dyrkin). There is “poetic justice” in
this scene. After all, in the wake of Pushkin’s tragic death Lermontov wrote
the incomparable accusatory poem On the
Death of a Poet:
“The poet’s dead, a prisoner of honor,
Fallen, foul-mouthed by the gossiping crowd…”
Every
Russian knows this poem by heart.
And
so, once again, with his unique sense of humor, Bulgakov reenacts Lermontov’s
condemnation of the murderers of “the sun of Russian poetry” in the scene of
physical violence perpetrated by the “pale youth” on the august persona of the
almighty Dyrkin.
As
I have pointed out already, Diaboliada is
a suspense thriller about the fate of a Russian officer of the White Guard in the aftermath of the
Civil War. Bulgakov generously invites the reader to spend three days and two
nights with his hero. Bulgakov will continue this theme in his famous play Run.
Diaboliada is Bulgakov’s first composition where he introduces
the supernatural element. Korotkov’s tragedy is in his understanding
that something wrong is going on around him:
“But he isn’t really double,
is he?”
“‘Have mercy, what are you…’
exclaimed Korotkov, feeling that something strange was beginning to happen
here, like everywhere else.”
“Something terrible happened
to me, I don’t understand. God forbid, do not take this for my hallucination!”
“Queen of Heaven, what is
this?”
“‘My God, something is going
on again,’ gloomily flashed in Korotkov’s head.”
Then
Korotkov seems to understand it all: “‘So, that’s what it is: Cats. All is clear
now, Cats!’” Which, ironically, happens in the most puzzling place,
where nothing is clear for the reader. What makes it most puzzling is that our
hero makes the most rational decision here, under the circumstances: not to
pursue this bizarre matter anymore: “not to submit further grievances, [but]
put the papers in order” and seek some other job.
And
having sensibly decided upon this course of action, Korotkov gets from the
frying pan into the fire: from the “Cats” to the “Dogs,” that is, to the
psych-ops. The mysterious little old man reappears. In their first meeting, in
spite of something “strange [and] ominous [in] the
blue eye-holes of the little old man, [causing] Korotkov’s joy to lose its
sparkle, he [Korotkov] immediately chased away the unpleasant feeling.” Here
again Korotkov behaves like a rational and reasonable man, under the
circumstances.
But
that second meeting with the “lustrine little old man” results in a
neurasthenic attack for Korotkov. Bulgakov gives the reader four clues as to
who this old man is. We will be discussing those four clues tomorrow.
To
be continued tomorrow…
No comments:
Post a Comment