The Bard.
Berlioz Is
Dead.
Kuzmin Is In
Leeches.
Long Live
Bosoy!
Posting #8.
“...Shouldn’t the civil power direct its wise
attention to the temptation of the new kind,
completely escaping the consideration
of the legislature?”
A. S. Pushkin.
Before
I turn to Pushkin’s note on Vidocq,
which has a direct bearing on F. Bulgarin, I’d like to address several passages
in Pushkin’s excerpt quoted at the end of the previous posting.
To
begin with, there is yet another interpretation of the word “kolpak” in
Bulgakov’s Master and Margarita:
Chapter32: Forgiveness and the Last Retreat. A. S. Pushkin writes about the
degradation of morality of his time:
“We were not content with seeing famous [sic!] people in a kolpak
and a schlafrock [nightgown]. We desired to follow them into their bedroom and
beyond…”
This
is how it sounds in Bulgakov:
“...You will be going to bed
having put on your soiled and eternal kolpak; you will be falling asleep with a
smile on your lips...”
In
this interpretation, Bulgakov clearly shows that master’s prototype must be a
famous personality, but he confuses the researcher nevertheless, as master
happens to be three famous personalities in one: Andrei Bely, Alexander Blok,
and Nikolai Gumilev.
“...Sleep will strengthen you;
you will be reasoning wisely. And you will never be able to chase me away: I
will be the one guarding your sleep.”
Not
only is Pushkin’s kolpak present here, but there is no bedroom indecency, no
vulgarity being played in front of the reader’s eyes avidly seeking lewd
entertainment. And we are talking about a mid-twentieth-century novel, that is,
after so many propriety restrictions had long been lifted.
What
an accomplishment for an author ecstatically admired ever since the first
publication of Master and Margarita in
the 1960’s, immersing himself into some mischievous subject matter, yet
remaining squeaky clean, or, if you prefer, clean as a whistle. Even in its
fantastical form, as no one has understood anything in it with the exception of
the fantastical backdrop. I repeat, that Bulgakov never allows himself any indecency
in the novel. Even the love story of master and Margarita is clean, despite the
adulterous affair depicted in it. No sex, where sex may be expected and even
justified.
In
the goriest, yet restrained, scene of Berlioz losing his head under the tram,
Berlioz does not speak his last word, like the victims in Pushkin’s Notes of Samson.
“Then inside Berlioz’s brain someone desperately shouted: ‘Could it really be so?’”
The
most interesting thing about this phrase is that Bulgakov builds it along the
lines of Valery Bryusov’s poem To Someone,
which starts as follows:
“Farman
or Wright or whoever you are...”
Using
V. Bryusov’s own word, Bulgakov indicates that Bryusov is Berlioz’s prototype.
Considering that there are two names mentioned in the line above, it is most
likely that Bryusov/Berlioz has recognized the “foreigner” as the Russian poet
Andrei Bely. Still I am sticking to my basic interpretation that right before
his death Berlioz had received proof that the devil exists, and by virtue of
it, this had become “the seventh proof” of God’s existence.
(More
on Pushkin’s article On Samson’s Notes in
my chapter Guests at Satan’s Great Ball.)
With
this I now move as promised to Pushkin’s article On the Notes of Vidocq, as in this article Pushkin’s unmasking of
Bulgarin continues. Pushkin writes:
“…The moralistic writings of Vidocq, the police snoop, presents a
phenomenon no less repulsive, no less curious than The Notes of Samson the Executioner of Paris. Imagine a man without
a name or place to be, living by daily denunciations, a consummate rogue, as
shameless as he is abhorrent... In his Notes
Vidocq calls himself a patriot, a native Frenchman – as if Vidocq can have
any kind of fatherland! He is assuring us of his military service, that he has
been not only allowed but also required to make dress changes; he is boasting
of a Legion d’Honneur decoration… [Incidentally, Bulgarin was never able to substantiate
this claim.] With great impudence, he boasted of his
friendship with a number of famous people, all deceased [sic!], yet all having
been in communication with him. [Once again without any proof, and surely
the dead cannot rise to their own defense, merely hoping, wherever they are,
that considering the source, a veritable snitch and fraud, no sensible person
would believe his allegations.]
With an amazing self-importance he discusses good society, as if
his access to it can ever be allowed. He becomes enraged reading an unfavorable
journalistic review of his literary style [sic!] (M. Vidocq’s style) – in such
a case he writes denunciations of his enemies [to the authorities], accusing
them of immorality and libertinism, and discourses on three pages (not in jest!)
about nobility of feelings and independence of opinion...”
Further
on, Pushkin continues to discuss the morality of European societies, their
so-called “values.” Apparently, F. V. Bulgarin had read plenty of foreign
literature, in order to produce the first Russian police detective story based
on his experience as a traitor in Europe.
“...The works of the spy Vidocq, of the executioner Samson, etc.,
do not offend the state religions [of the European countries] or the
governments, or even morality in the most general sense of the word. Having
said that, we cannot see them except as extremely offensive to public
propriety...”
A.
S. Pushkin closes his article with a question:
“...Shouldn’t the civil power direct its wise attention to the
temptation of the new kind, completely escaping the consideration of the
legislature?”
Bulgakov
takes the idea from Pushkin to match Pushkin’s “threesome” of Bulgarin,
Gretsch, and Senkovsky, with his own “threesome” – in this case the three
journalists in Master and Margarita appearing
under the names Ahriman, Lavrovich, and Latunsky:
“One day, the hero [master] opened a newspaper and saw in it the
critic Ahriman’s article An Enemy Sortie,
in which [Ahriman] warned each and all that our hero wished to sneak into print
“an apology of Jesus Christ.” … The
next day, in another newspaper, under the signature of Mstislav Lavrovich,
another article appeared, in which the author proposed to hit, and to hit hard against
Pilatism [that is, against raising
the question of who killed Jesus Christ] and against the God-painting hack who fancied to sneak it
into print. The article by Latunsky was
titled A Militant Old-Believer…”
In
other words, Bulgakov’s three journalists match A. S. Pushkin’s three
journalists, who are also spreading their pernicious ideas, thus blocking the
freedom of opinion and speech in Russian society
To
be continued...
***
No comments:
Post a Comment