Gumilev. The
Dragon.
Posting #5.
“Et
dicit eis: Ecce homo…
Accipite
eum vos, et crucifigite: ego enim non invenio in eo causam.”
John
19:5.
The story of the Dragon and the Priest in Gumilev’s Poem of the Beginning has a direct connection
to Bulgakov’s Pontius Pilate, which
is indicated, to begin with, by the following words of Gumilev:
“A
voice rich, thick, and full,
Uttered
for the first time in ages
The
forbidden word: OM!”
Naturally, Gumilev takes his “OM” from the famous words uttered by Pontius Pilate and referring
to Jesus Christ: “Ecce Homo.”
Also note the mystically loaded word “TRANSFIGURATION,” contained in the
question asked by the Priest. And also, when the Priest asks the same question
a second time, the third part of the question changes from “the horrible end of
the worlds” to “the end of the primordial forces.”
In other words, being a devoted Christian, N. Gumilev
writes that the end will come only for the primordial forces, that is, to
everything in the world that preexisted the coming of Christ.
So, what ideas did Bulgakov take from Gumilev’s Poem of the Beginning?
To begin with, we must note that Gumilev wrote only
the first chapter of the first book of the poem, calling it “First Song.” This is very important. As
we know, Bulgakov begins his sub-novel Pontius
Pilate in the second chapter of Master
and Margarita, which he titles Pontius
Pilate. Thus Bulgakov hides a certain continuity here. This continuity from
Gumilev is likewise shown by Bulgakov’s emphasis on the word “chelovek,” “man,”
“homo.”
Introducing this word in his Poem, Gumilev writes:
“Uttered
for the first time in ages,
The
forbidden word: OM!”
Giving his second chapter the title Pontius Pilate, Bulgakov points to the
famous words of Pilate in John 19:5: ECCE HOMO, BEHOLD THE MAN.
“Et dicit eis: Ecce homo… Accipite eum vos, et crucifigite: ego enim
non invenio in eo causam.”
It is from here, and not from Hinduism that N. S.
Gumilev takes his own word “OM.” When
Bulgakov introduces Christ in the second chapter, he does not call him by any
name for a while. Even Pontius Pilate does not ask the arrestee’s name. It is
known only that he comes from Galilee. The Tetrarch of Galilee had refused to
render his judgment on the case, and the Synhedrion submitted its proposed
death sentence to the Procurator of Judea for his approval.
In the course of two pages Bulgakov, in describing
Christ, calls him “chelovek” four times:
“Chelovek of
approximately twenty-seven years of age”;
“Chelovek in an
old and torn blue chiton”;
“Under
chelovek’s left eye there was a large bruise, in the corner of the mouth, a cut
with clotted blood on it”;
“Chelovek with
his hands tied.”
And also:
“The suspect
under investigation, the defendant, the one who was brought in, the criminal,
the bound one, the fallen one, the arrestee, he…”
Thus calling Christ “chelovek” four times before
Pontius Pilate asks him about his human name, Yeshua Ha-Nozri, Bulgakov alludes
to the “magnificent four” in the novel Master
and Margarita – namely, the four greatest Russian poets A. S. Pushkin, M.
Yu. Lermontov, V. V. Mayakovsky, and S. A. Yesenin.
Introducing into the novel the expression “dobry
chelovek” (the easiest translation would be “a good man,” which I will be
using, although it misses such nuances of the Russian language as “a kind man,”
etc. It can be argued however that the English translation “a good man” covers
all these positive character traits that are included in the Russian original)
– Bulgakov does it three times in a row, according to the good Russian
tradition honoring the Trinity.
First Yeshua calls Pontius Pilate “a good man,” after
which Pontius Pilate repeats this expression twice. Here Bulgakov alludes to
the fact that the character of master, who has “written” Pontius Pilate, contains traits of three Russian poets, Bulgakov’s
contemporaries, and the closest to him in the question of religion, considering
that all three of them, Gumilev, Blok and Bely, were deeply religious men,
Russian Orthodox, and mystics, like Bulgakov after them.
Before we proceed with Pontius Pilate’s “chelovek,” we
need to draw our attention to his nickname. –
“It’s
me you call a good man? You are mistaken. In Yershalaim everybody is whispering
about me that I am a fierce monster, and this is perfectly true…”
However, Bulgakov shows no proof that this is true.
Quite the contrary.
Having summoned the Centurion Mark the Ratkiller,
Pilate orders him to explain to the arrestee how he should talk to the
procurator. But he limits the “explanation” to one minute only and also exhibits
certain humanity at the sight of the beaten-up man (Yeshua), by ordering “not
to cripple.” Rather strange orders from a “fierce monster”! Do they suggest
that it was perhaps the giant Ratkiller known by that nickname? Hardly. Can a
“fierce monster” be so much afraid of a dog as Ratkiller was afraid of Banga?
No way!
Perhaps, the “fierce monster” comes from Gumilev’s
dragon in the Poem of the Beginning?
How else can a dragon be called?
Still, both Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas have a certain
common trait with Gumilev’s Dragon. Although neither is covered with glittering
scales, their eyes sparkle, but for different reasons.
In his conversation about Judas, Pontius Pilate asks
the unsuspecting Yeshua:
“A
good man? – asked Pilate, and a devilish fire sparkled in his eyes.”
To be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment