Margarita
and the Wolf.
The Bulgakov
Multiplicities.
“Are
you multiple? --- I know not.”
St. Augustine.
Yesenin’s Margarita is a very interesting creation.
The reader must have noticed that in my chapter The Two Adversaries both Yesenin’s and Mayakovsky’s ‘Margaritas’ are conspicuously missing
from consideration. Yet both deserve special treatment, to which effect we have
them in separate chapters: Margarita and
the Wolf and Margarita: Queen and the
Revolution.
In this chapter we shall also look at the
multiplicities of Yesenin, who happens to be the prototype of both the poet-turned-historian
Ivan Bezdomny/Ivan Nikolayevich Ponyrev and the demon-tempter Azazello. Thus,
these two themes, namely, Yesenin’s Margarita and Yesenin’s multiplicities are
intertwined in this chapter.
We can only admire Bulgakov’s skills as a trained
physician, who had to take, under his professional curriculum, the course of
psychology, which interested him madly and profusely contributed to his
creation of such a fascinating and complex spectrum of magnificent works of
fiction.
***
If Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin in his works was
interested in cases of mistaken identity, Mikhail Afanasievich Bulgakov was
overwhelmingly intrigued by the phenomenon of split personality. Bulgakov’s
most interesting work in this sense, where he combines mistaken identity with
split personality, is his early novella Diaboliada.
I analyzed this work of his in my already posted eponymous chapter. (See my
postings LXXXII-XCVI.)
Bulgakov’s special interest in multiple personalities
may have come from the article Night Luminary,
about M. Yu. Lermontov, written by the notable Russian writer, poet,
philosopher and mystic D. S. Merezhkovsky. There was therefore a good reason
for Bulgakov in his letter to I. V. Stalin, to call himself a “mystical
writer.”
“In
human form, [nevertheless] not quite a man, [italicized by D.
Merezhkovsky] a being of a different order and of a different dimension…”
After which, D Merezhkovsky comes to the conclusion,
with which I happen to strongly disagree, that ---
“---the
hardest, most ominous thing in M. Yu. Lermontov’s fate… was his infinite split,
the wavering of the will, of good and evil, of light and darkness.”
The reason why I disagree with this is not only that I
have already proved by M. Yu. Lermontov’s poems themselves that he had always
been on the side of good, but also in the fact that D. S. Merezhkovsky is
contradicting himself both in the opening of his Lermontov article and at its
end.
“…When death comes, I will
remember my childhood prayers, I will remember Lermontov.”
And at the end of the article:
“…When
I start doubting whether anything else exists beyond this life, it is enough
for me to remember Lermontov, to prove to myself that yes, there does.”
And here is the reason:
“…No
one has ever looked death so straight in the face, because no one has ever felt
so clearly that there is no death…”
Merezhkovsky was, of course, himself a mystic, like so
many Russians throughout the ages have been mystics. He was also a deeply
religious man, which is why it is hard to doubt his sincerity. If there is no
death, the last place where Merezhkovsky would want to end up in, would be
Hell.
Aside from this article by D. Merezhkovsky, Bulgakov’s
interest in the multiplicities and on other occasions in the fusion of two or
more real-life images in his fictional characters (which he had amply proven in
his works written long before Master and
Margarita... more about it in my chapter A Dress Rehearsal for Master and Margarita), had to have a more
solid basis. Being a trained physician, he had to be a student of human
psychology.
His interest in psychology had to become even more
acute since his decision to become a writer. It is impossible to write literary
fiction without a deep knowledge of human nature.
Bulgakov was a master in his field, as he was writing
fairly short in the number of pages, but incredibly content-packed literary
creations. Considering that in Bulgakov certain almost identical, but not
quite, storylines, situations, and also personages of his works, become
interconnected, or go in parallel, this poses puzzles to the reader, and thus
makes the text even more challenging.
M. Bulgakov’s infatuation with the fantastical was
merely a theater curtain, distracting the reader from seeing the reality behind
the curtain, making his creations accessible to readers of diverse levels. As
Francis Bacon wrote a long time ago, “some
books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some few to be chewed and
digested.”
By the same ingenious trick, Bulgakov confuses the
censors of his works, making the whole thing triply interesting.
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment