Wednesday, October 11, 2017

GALINA SEDOVA. A CHAPTER ON BULGAKOV. CDLXIV



The Garden.
Blok’s Nightingale Garden.
Posting #2.


“...But I don’t even have a donkey to myself, Igemon. I entered Yershalaim through the Souza Gate, that’s true, but I came on foot, accompanied only by Levi Matthew, and no one yelled anything to me, as nobody in Yershalaim knew me then…

M. A. Bulgakov. Master and Margarita.


Returning to the word “chern” at the end of my previous posting, I’d like to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that Bulgakov does not use the word “people,” but the word usually signifying inferior people, lowlife, so to speak. Bulgakov’s use of this specific word “chern” directly points to Alexander Blok, due to Blok’s speech, shortly before his death in 1921, given at the House of Litterateurs on the occasion of the 84th anniversary of the death of A. S. Pushkin.
In this lecture, Blok found himself in the position of having to become Pushkin’s defender, on account of Pushkin’s use of both the word “people” and the word “chern,” which had currency in Pushkin’s time.
As a matter of fact, despite the perceived negative connotation, associated with “lowlife,” there is nothing intrinsically negative in the word “chern.” Incidentally, Russian monks used to be known as “chernets,” which refers to the black garment they wear (cherny=black). Therefore, the negativity of “chern” is not an intrinsic pejorative denotation but an acquired connotation which must not be carried back to Pushkin’s time, when the meaning was by no means as offensive as it would later become through sheer ignorance of its users. I think that this kind of attack on Pushkin using a “politically incorrect” word in reference to the “masses” is a cheap shot and altogether nonsense, showing hatred of inferior wannabies toward the great trailblazer with whom almost two centuries ago started modern Russian literature.
But Blok’s speech caused a sensation and was applauded by many Russian poets of the 20th century, including Marina Tsvetaeva.

***


Meanwhile, we are returning to Bulgakov’s sub-novel Pontius Pilate of Master and Margarita and to the question about Yeshua’s donkey.

“...The arrestee looked at the procurator uncomprehendingly: But I don’t even have any donkey to myself, Igemon, he said. I entered Yershalaim through the Souza Gate, that’s true, but I came on foot, accompanied only by Levi Matthew, and no one yelled anything to me, as nobody in Yershalaim knew me then…

In this way, Bulgakov not only points out that he was using Blok’s Nightingale Garden, but also reveals that in his portrait of Yeshua he combines certain features of Blok and other Russian poets, such as N. S. Gumilev and Andrei Bely, that is, those same prototypes that we find in the character of master.

***


Returning to Alexander Blok’s Nightingale Garden, it is only on the last page of this long poem that we learn from Blok himself that it was all a dream. –

…The previously familiar and not very long road
This morning feels rocky and hard.
I step onto the deserted shore
Where I had left my house and my donkey.

It becomes clear that, as it often happens in Blokian poems, he is familiar with this place where he usually comes taking walks. Blok takes this literary device from A. S. Pushkin, and this is how he starts his poem Night Violet and a poem from Free Thoughts, and even in his play The Unknown the poet has all day been taking walks along city streets, listening and watching, before he reaches his destination: the pub.
And as is often the case with Blok, his reality is closely connected to his visions and dreams. As he asks himself:

Have I lost my way in the fog?
Or is somebody joking with me?..

But he immediately answers his own question. This is the right place, he has been here before:

…No, I remember the shape of the rocks,
The haggard bush, and the cliff over the water…

Although in Pontius Pilate Bulgakov places the action on the Bald Mountain in Chapter 16 of Master and Margarita, The Execution:

“What has been said about not a single person being behind the legionnaires’ chain, is not altogether true. One person was indeed there, it’s just that he could not be observed by all. He positioned himself not on the side of the open ascent up the mountain from which the execution [the Crucifixion of Christ] could be best seen, but on the northern side, where the hill wasn’t smooth and accessible, but uneven, with crevices and chasms. Clinging inside the crevice to the cursed by heaven waterless soil, a sick little fig tree was trying to live. It was under this tree, giving absolutely no shadow that the only spectator and not a participant of the execution positioned himself… striving to find on this northern side of the mountain some kind of rift in the [soldiers’] chain… The circle closed… And now he moved to the side, toward the crevice…”

The reader also learns that the Bald Mountain was all covered with rocks:

“Behind the chain of two Roman centurias there were just two dogs. Nobody knew who they belonged to and why they had found themselves on the hill. But even they were overwhelmed by the heat, lying down with their tongues sticking out, and paying no attention to the green-backed lizards, the only creatures not afraid of the sun and running between the heated rocks and some kind of plants with big prickles creeping over the ground.”

And so, like Blok in the Nightingale Garden, Bulgakov has “rocks” on the Bald Mountain; his “prickles” are Blok’s “thorns” on the roses; and Blok’s “haggard bush” turns into Bulgakov’s “sick little fig tree” in Pontius Pilate.
The last observation is of the most importance, as already in the 2nd chapter of Master and Margarita under the title Pontius Pilate Bulgakov introduces his own “garden.”
Responding to Pilate’s question: “Who is he?” who follows Yeshua all the time “with a goatskin parchment roll, writing incessantly,” Yeshua readily responds:

Levi Matthew, readily explained the arrestee. He used to be a tax collector. I first met him on the road in Viffagia, where a fig garden comes out in an angle, and we talked. At first he treated me with hostility and even insulted me, that is, he thought that he was insulting me by calling me a dog… The arrestee grinned. – Personally, I see nothing foul in this animal, to be offended by this word…

In such a manner, Bulgakov replaces Blok’s imaginary woman in a “white dress” by Levi Matthew, and Blok’s “donkey” by a non-existent “dog.” As the reader remembers, an actual dog belongs to Pontius Pilate. So, what is it that Bulgakov wishes to say about two ownerless dogs watching the execution of their probable masters Gestas and Dismas, if not to liken Levi Matthew’s devotion to Yeshua to the devotion of these animals?
Having met Yeshua by the fig garden, the affluent tax collector is transformed into a dirty pauper, sitting under a “sick little fig tree” on the Bald Mountain, where he “hopelessly stared into the yellow ground and saw a half-destroyed skull of a dog on it, with lizards hustling around it.”
In other words, Matthew Levi was seeing his future.

To be continued…


No comments:

Post a Comment