Magic Of The Sorcerer Molière.
Posting #17.
“Blok possesses a purely
Pushkinian ability to
make one feel the eternal in the
transitory,
behind each accidental character to show
the shadow of genius,
guarding his destiny.”
Nikolai Gumilev on Alexander Blok.
As
for Bulgakov’s description of Gumilev’s face, it all boils down to the
following words in his description of Molière in the eponymous novel:
“In a word, [he is] extremely uncomely in appearance.”
This
corresponds to what contemporaries were saying about Gumilev, such as, for
instance, the beginning poetess Irina Odoevtseva:
“So, this is how he is, Gumilev. It is hard to imagine a more
uncomely, more unique man. Everything is unique in him, and uniquely uncomely.”
However,
Mme Nevedomskaya in her memoirs has a far more charitable opinion of Gumilev:
“He had an unusual face, either a Bi-Ba-Bo,
or Pierrot, or a Mongol, but his eyes and hair were of light color…”
Curiously,
although on his portraits Molière’s wigs are always dark-haired, Bulgakov, for
some reason, says that has a light-colored wig on him.
Meanwhile
Mme Nevedomskaya writes this:
“…Intelligent probing eyes, slightly
squinting. With all that, accentuatedly ceremonial manners, while his eyes and
mouth show a sly grin. It feels like he wants to do some mischief.”
It
is this particular description of Gumilev by Mme Nevedomskaya that must have
been noted by others as well. Bulgakov picks it up and passes it on to Woland
on Patriarch Ponds. He is also putting a special emphasis on the eyes in the
novel Molière:
“But his eyes are quite remarkable. I am reading in them a strange
indelible sarcastic grin, and, at the same time, some kind of eternal amazement
before the world around him.”
Strangely,
I never noticed anything like that in any of Molière’s portraits. On the other
hand, I instantly recognized Mme Nevedomskaya’s words about the eyes of N. S.
Gumilev, as well as the following words of Bulgakov:
“He found amusing sides in people, and liked to exercise his wit on
that account.”
Following
Pushkin’s advice, Bulgakov does not “resettle” himself into the 17th
century France, a country he had never been to, or an age for which he was born
too late. Although he masterfully uses details from French history and was
well-versed in the customs of that time, the manner of dress, and the
personalities of the time with their intrigues and accomplishments, which in no
way impedes in his portrayal of the main character of the novel, that is Molière,
his ability to use features of the people, his contemporaries, whom he
personally knew, while diversifying their traits and appearance through those
of the greats whom he respected and loved. For instance, Bulgakov writes:
“I see that he is irascible. He has acute mood swings. This young
man easily passes from moments of mirth to moments of heavy brooding. He finds
amusing sides in people, and likes to exercise his wit on that account.”
What
Bulgakov has here is, in all likelihood, a psychological profile of my favorite
poet Mikhail Yu. Lermontov.
Continuing
to describe Molière’s eyes, Bulgakov moves on to the Russian poet Alexander
Blok:
“There is something voluptuous in these eyes, as though feminine,
and at their bottom – a hidden malaise. Some kind of worm, believe me, is
sitting in this 20-year-old man, and now already it is eating into him.”
(See
my chapter Guests at Satan’s Great Ball:
The Twenty-Year-Old Lad.)
The
next excerpt also points to Alexander Blok.
“At times, he imprudently falls into candor, at other times he
tries to be cagey and dissimulating. At times he is rashly brave, but he may
immediately fall into indecisiveness and cowardice. Oh, do believe me, under
these conditions he will have a hard life before him, and he will make a lot of
enemies.”
Naturally,
Bulgakov comes to all these conclusions having A. Blok in mind, based on Blok’s
own poetry. Blok was of course brutally honest in his poems. He found material
for his verses, as well as inspiration for them, in himself.
A
corroboration of Alexander Blok’s duality came to me from Nikolai Gumilev’s Articles and Notes on Russian Poetry. In
one of his articles he writes:
“In front of A. Blok stand two Sphinxes,
making him ‘sing and cry,’ with their
unsolved puzzles: Russia and his own soul. The first [Sphinx] is Nekrasov’s,
the other one is Lermontov’s. And frequently, all-too-frequently, Blok shows
the two of them fused into one, organically inseparable. Impossible? But hasn’t
Lermontov written The Song of the
Merchant Kalashnikov?
Like no other, can Blok combine two themes
in one, without contraposing them to each other, but merging them chemically.
This device opens to us horizons without measure in the realm of poetry.”
I
already wrote before that Bulgakov was reading all literary journals published
in Russia, absorbing the best in them and learning from the poets (sic!) how to
write good prose.
In
yet another article about Blok, Gumilev continues praising him:
“Usually, a poet gives the people his works. Blok gives himself.
What I want to say by this is that in his poetry there is no resolution of
general problems, as in Pushkin, nor philosophical, as in Tyutchev. He simply
portrays his own life, which, fortunately for him, is so wondrously rich in
internal struggle, catastrophes, and enlightenments.”
Gumilev
pays Blok the best compliment that can be paid to a poet.
“Blok possesses a purely Pushkinian ability to make one feel the
eternal in the transitory, behind each accidental character to show the shadow
of genius, guarding his destiny.”
Isn’t
it what Bulgakov is doing in his novel Molière?
Bulgakov himself is also writing about duality in the 11th chapter
of Molière:
“Philip of France [alias Duc d’Orleans, the King’s only brother]
and Molière study each other with
their eyes. Philip of France checks his impression. It is dual [sic!]: It would
seem that best of all he might like the smile and the creases on the face, but
by no means the eyes of the comedian. The eyes indeed appear wary, kind of
somber.”
And
Philip wants to incline himself to like the [honeyed] creases on the face, but
for some reason he is still attracted to the eyes.
To be continued…
***
No comments:
Post a Comment