The Garden.
Aphranius.
Posting #2.
“Gumilev was of an
exceptionally calm character.
Almost a phlegmatic.
Calmly brave.”
From a letter of Captain Yu. V. Yanishevsky.
Quoted by G. P. Struve.
It
is quite clear from all available sources that Gumilev’s bravery was second to
none. That’s why it is so easy to believe the words of Yeshua to Pontius Pilate
that it wasn’t the latter who had “hung
his life on a hair.” Knowing that Gumilev himself wrote:
“There
is God and there is the world. They live forever.
And people’s lives are
momentary and miserable.”
What
N. Gumilev has in mind here, is that if human life depends on anybody, it
depends on God alone.
How
does that correlate with the following request made by Yeshua to Pilate in the
2nd chapter of Bulgakov’s Master
and Margarita? –
“Why
don’t you let me go free, Igemon? – suddenly asked the prisoner, and there
was alarm in his voice. – I see that
[some people] want to kill me.”
Yeshua’s
request in Bulgakov’s novel is inconsistent with the character of Gumilev, but
it is most certainly consistent with the presence of the other two poets – Blok
and Bely – in the character of Yeshua.
There
is also another explanation. The role of Yeshua’s request in the novel is to
draw attention to Bryusov’s inaction, who failed to help any of his friends and
former students: Gumilev, Bely, and Blok.
It
was Lunacharsky who helped Balmont to go abroad in 1920, most likely on the
request of M. Gorky. Gorky was also trying to help, albeit in vain, to save the
life of Gumilev, whom he knew and respected, having worked together from 1918
to 1921 as members of the editorial board of the Publishing House Vsemirnaya Literatura [World Literature],
founded by Gorky.
***
According
to the firsthand story of the man who served in the Russian Army with Gumilev
during the First World War, Colonel A. V. Posazhny. –
“...In 1916, when the Alexandrovsky Hussar Regiment was positioned
in the trenches on the river Dvina, Staff-Captain Posazhny happened to live –
for nearly two months – in the same hut with Gumilev. Once, walking to the
position of the Fourth Squadron across an open terrain, Staff-Captains
Shahnazarov and Posazhny and Ensign Gumilev were suddenly shot at from the
other bank of the Dvina by a German machinegun. Shahnazarov and Posazhny
promptly jumped into the trench, whereas Gumilev deliberately [sic!] stayed
back in the open, and started lighting a cigarette, after which he too jumped
from the dangerous spot into the trench, where the Squadron Commander
Shahnazarov severely reprimanded him for an unnecessary in such a case
gallantry: standing without a purpose in an open spot under enemy fire.”
I
do not agree with this assessment of Gumilev’s “unnecessary gallantry.” In full
agreement with the portrait of Gumilev drawn by Mme. Nevedomskaya, I believe
that he was absolutely devoid of the sense of fear, at least until after the
fact. Only after the danger had passed could he look back and marvel at himself
for having no fear in a situation that had certainly been fear-inspiring.
***
I
may also point out what must always have confused the researcher in the
character of Aphranius – that the description of his appearance by Bulgakov was
so much in dissonance with the real appearance of Balmont. It was rather the
striking resemblance between Aphranius’ appearance and that of Gumilev:
“His face wasn’t either handsome or noteworthy: a large head, a big
fleshy nose [sic!]. He always talked softly and in a drawling manner.”
And
here is Bulgakov’s description of Aphranius in chapter 25 How the Procurator Tried to Save Judas from Kyriath:
“The man was of middle age with a very
pleasant round and neat face, and a fleshy nose. His hair was of some
indefinite color. Now that it was drying up, the color was light. The
nationality of the visitor would be hard to figure out. The main feature
defining his face was good-naturedness,
which was however spoiled by the eyes, or rather not so much the eyes as
the manner of the visitor to look at his interlocutor. Normally the visitor was
hiding his little eyes under the cover of his rather strange, as though swollen
eyelids. Then in the slits of these eyes there shone a malice-free mischief. It
could be supposed that the procurator’s visitor was disposed to humor. But
occasionally, totally banishing this glittering humor from the slits, the
present guest would open his eyelids wide and look at his interlocutor suddenly
and point blank, as if he needed quickly to examine some inconspicuous spot on
the interlocutor’s nose. This lasted for just one moment, after which the lids
were lowered again, narrowing into slits, and there again there would shine in
them that same good-naturedness and the sly mind.”
Reminiscences
of Gumilev’s contemporaries also provide us with descriptions of his
appearance. Thus, for instance, the “elongated oval of the face” becomes a
“pleasantly-round and neat face.” N. S. Gumilev’s “friendliness” becomes
Aphranius’ “good-naturedness” in Bulgakov. Gumilev’s “heavy eyelids” become
“rather strange, as though swollen” in Aphranius. Gumilev’s “ever-so-slightly
ironic smile” turns into Aphranius’ “malice-free mischief in the slits of the
eyes. It should be supposed that the procurator’s visitor was predisposed to
humor.”
We
are again well-served by the memoirs of Mme. Nevedomskaya:
“…[Gumilev’s] eyes and mouth are grinning; it feels like he wants
to make mischief and pull a joke…” [Op. cited, Volume I, p. XXXV.]
Gumilev’s
student, the poetess Irina Odoevtseva, also stresses his smile, which has
something sly in it.
To
be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment