The Garden.
Caiaphas.
Posting #3.
“Physician, heal
thyself.”
Luke 4:23.
As
for Caiaphas, considering that his prototype is a very unscrupulous man with a
very untidy biography: Efim Pridvorov, aka Demyan Bedny, I think that he can be
called a base, as well as cowardly person, as in 1941, having lost all his
privileges, he changed his tune to the diametrical opposite, starting to extoll
all Russian virtues, which he had been trashing with a gusto before.
But
the most important thing here is that Bulgakov introduces into this story “our
old acquaintance” [from the novel Moliere]
the virtuous Prince Conti. –
“You cannot really – he
was saying – make Don Juan say daring
speeches, while assigning the defense of religion and of the Divine Origin to a
fool – a lackey. To what extent can he stand up against his brilliant opponent?”
Considering
that Bulgakov has put in this witty remark
of the prince, we must take it into account at least for the argument’s sake.
Let us assume that V. Ya. Bryusov, being a mentor and friend of N. S. Gumilev,
really wanted to help him. All the more knowing that Bulgakov is making such a
deep emphasis on Pontius Pilate’s hemicrania. Apparently, up to now the
researcher of Pontius Pilate does not
seem to understand what he or she is dealing with here, that is, in the
presented in this passage by Bulgakov conversation between Pontius Pilate and
Yeshua about truth. –
“The truth is, before
everything else, that you have a headache, and the pain is so severe that,
faintheartedly, you are thinking about death…”
And
completing his thought, Yeshua says:
“But your torment is about to
end, the headache will be gone.”
A
very interesting passage follows:
“Here the procurator got up from the chair, squeezed his head with
his hands, and his yellow shaven face expressed horror. He, however, instantly
suppressed it by his will, and lowered himself into the armchair again.”
The
importance of the word “armchair” is emphasized by the fact that Bulgakov is
using it 21 times in the course of a relatively short space. I am writing about
this in my chapter The Bard.
The
most important expression in this paragraph is the following: Pontius Pilate
was horrified, but he was able to suppress his horror by the power of
his will.
This
is taken from Marina Tsvetaeva:
“The poet of the will. The action of the will may be
short but it is limitless at a given hour. The will which is of this world. All
is here. All is now... Bryusov was obeyed... So, what is the power? What
are the charms? Non-Russian [power] and non-Russian [charms]: A Will
unaccustomed to, in Rus...”
So,
what is going on here? How does Pontius Pilate get rid of his headache?
Bulgakov writes:
“Confess it! – Pilate
asked softly in Greek. – You are a great physician?
No, Procurator, I am not a physician,
– replied the arrestee...
They were silent for a while. Then Pilate asked the question in
Greek:
And so, you are a physician?
No, no! – briskly
replied the arrestee. – Believe me, I
am not a physician.”
And
so, Pilate repeats his question, thus using the word “physician” twice. And
both times Yeshua replies that he is not a physician.
Bulgakov
takes this idea about a physician from A. S. Pushkin who in his Letter to the Publisher wrote: “Physician, heal thyself!” – obviously
having in mind not a physician, but the man himself.
Hence,
Pontius Pilate heals himself by the power of his own will. There is a
reason why Pilate’s prototype was the Russian poet V. Ya. Bryusov, the poet of
the will, as the Russian poetess Marina Tsvetaeva called him.
Yeshua
is being accused of agitating the people to destroy the Temple of Yershalaim.
For which reason the words “the Temple” and “the people” become keywords both
in Pilate’s conversation with Yeshua and in Pilate’s conversation with
Caiaphas.
The
procurator’s very first question in the interrogation of Yeshua was:
“So, it was you who incited
the people to destroy the Temple of Yershalaim?”
And next Pilate asks the
question a second time:
“So, it was you who wanted to
destroy the Temple of Yershalaim and incited the people to do it?”
To
which Yeshua replies:
“No, Igemon, I never in my
life intended to destroy the Temple building, and never incited anyone to such
a senseless action.”
In
his article Without Divinity, Without
Inspiration Alexander Blok determines that the word Temple belongs to poetry, like, say, in “the Temple of Symbolism.” In this case, Pontius Pilate’s prototype Bryusov,
the creator of Russian Symbolism, could well interrogate his pupil N. S.
Gumilev as to why he wanted to replace Symbolism with Acmeism, or as Gumilev himself called this movement: Adamism.
This
is how it sounds in Bulgakov:
“So, what was it after all
that you told about the Temple to the crowd [that is, to the poets] at the
market?
I, Igemon, was saying that
the Temple of the old faith [that is, Symbolism] will fall and a new Temple
will rise, the Temple of Truth [that is, Acmeism]. I said this to make it more
comprehensible.
But why did you, vagabond,
confuse the people at the market talking about truth, of which you have no
conception? What is truth?”
Using
the word “market,” Bulgakov apparently has in mind the selling of verses. By
that time Symbolism must have run out of steam, as Blok had suggested.
Then
in such a scenario, the word “truth” also acquires a different meaning. The
famous Russian writer K. I. Chukovsky in his book A. Blok as a Person and a Poet writes about an argument between A.
Blok and N. Gumilev.
“Most frequently Blok talked to Gumilev. The two poets were engaged
in a never-ending argument about poetry. With his habitual pluckiness Gumilev
was attacking Blok’s Symbolism:
Symbolists are just conmen.
They took a weight, wrote 10 poods on it, but they hollowed the center. They
are throwing this weight this way and that way, and it’s empty!
In other words, the weight of Symbolism has no substance. Its
meaning is incomprehensible.
To which Blok replies thus:
But this is being done by all
followers and imitators – in all movements. Symbolism is not the culprit here.
Generally speaking, what you
are saying is not Russian to me.”
...The arguers never finished their argument. Russia was not
discriminating between the Acmeists and the Symbolists.”
That
was a good illustration of what was going on in Russian poetry on the eve of
Blok’s and Gumilev’s deaths, Followed by the deaths of Bryusov and Yesenin.
Mayakovsky was holding longer that the others, until 1930, before he shot
himself.
To
be continued…
***
No comments:
Post a Comment