Master and fatal passions

Review of: Varlamov A. N. Mikhail Bulgakov. M.: Young Guard, 2008 (ZhZL). 840 p.

* * *

The biographical genre is indestructible. From the face of the earth, he will disappear the last, along with literature as such. Because there is nothing more tempting for an inquisitive layman than to find out what they lived, what they drank, with whom the great ones slept - and make sure that he, a simple mortal, is no worse than a bad fate or, conversely (which is much less common), imbued with his insignificance in comparison with the genius. And the deeper the trace left by the person on the exhausted paths of the history of mankind, the more attractive it is for the biographer and its publisher, because it guarantees them bread and glory.

But there is a special category-the significant persons, due to different concrete historical reasons, which became part of the worldview and culture of entire generations. After some time, each aspect of their activities and creativity is overgrown with scientific works, theories and speculations, around which whole integrative areas of humanitarian knowledge are formed, for example, Shakespeare, Pushkinism or Bulgakovs. The biographical field of these objects of the cult, as a rule, has long been plowed along and across, the sources about them (except for very secretly classified) have been published several times by competing “scientific schools”, and if there is an unknown document or fact, this is a large event. To say something new about the earthly path of Pushkin or Yesenin, Dostoevsky or the same Bulgakov is incredibly difficult, and almost inevitably it will be from the field of interpretations. It already depends on the biographer whether his work will become another step towards understanding the writer's work, or will the next speculation on a beaten topic will be born.

The life of Mikhail Bulgakov was, it seems, thoroughly investigated in the 1970s and 1990s, in the wake of the popularity of the writer, in the publications of L. M. Yanovskaya, M. O. Chudakova and many, many others [1] . Therefore, each neophytus, stepping on this wide, beaten path, has an ambitious task to avoid repetitions and borrowings.

Alexei Varlamov, author of the new biography of Bulgakov, which will be discussed, is a recognized modern master of the genre, however, has nothing to do with Bulgakovo. In the series of ZhZL, he already came out, in addition to the biography of Bulgakov, four works: about Alexei Tolstoy, Mikhail Prishvin, Alexander Green and Grigory Rasputin. Apparently, the book about Bulgakov is of particular importance for the author. Having a reputation as an overturned idol, this time he stated that this is the only thing written by them, "where there is no debunking the hero." On the contrary, it seems to him that he “discovered in the personality of this person the height that he really occupied” [2] . It is difficult to disagree: with almost each of the 840 pages of the publication, this height gaps in the face of the reader.

What will be focused on the history of the life of Bulgakov, obviously from the structure of the book, all three parts of which are called the names of the hero’s wives, and among the chapters there are such intriguing as “Valya, you are an ass” or “this external b ...” (it is not clear why the capacitance and juicy Russian word is hidden behind the multi -plate, and the author is at ease, and in the text, it is at ease of the same word and derived from this word and derived from him). But we, perhaps, will leave aside the “tasty” details of the writer’s personal life that the biographer lells, and turn to creativity.

Varlamov identifies Bulgakov’s manner of writing, more precisely, a way to create a literary image based on a prototype. Inventing any image, any writer often uses a really existing person-neighbor, relative, colleague. The characteristic features, appearance, etc., is borround, often mystifying them, mixing with others, so that the image is “collective”, and a particular person in it is recognized very conditionally.

But with Bulgakov, as it turns out, everything was different. He quite consciously extracted a person who was familiar to him and, endowing mainly with extremely unsympathetic features, turned into his hero. He “did not hesitate himself and did everything so that his prototypes did not doubt anything when reading. Including, first of all, negative ”(p. 94). Such a fate befell, say, an engineer of the Likovs), whom the writer brought in the image of a coward Vasilisa, ready to lay and sell all the turbines. The Prototype itself died in 1919 by the hands of the Reds, trying to escape from the shipping ship that transported prisoners.

It seems that Varlamov has one ethical standard for the writer, the other for everyone else. Everywhere he wants to pole Bulgakov, even for those actions, without which the vast majority of Homo sapiens cannot do without the commission. No one needs justification for preferring sturgeon of first freshness. Varlamov, however, protects those techniques that belittle the hero - in other words, the effect is directly opposite to the plan.

Alexey Tolstoy - one of the antagonists of Bulgakov in the book of Varlamov. The biographer is so sincerely outraged by the fact that, upon arrival in the Soviet Union, the count rushed to arrange his own life - that he wants to ask: whose he had to arrange? Bulgakova? Tolstoy is accused: he settled down " in a muddy present with the luxury of the past ." And when Bulgakov was equipped with a tailcoat, a monocle and luxurious dinners - what happened? Innocent pranks of genius? It turns out that Bulgakov is possible, but there is no olstoy? Why? But why: Tolstoy’s prose “ was not suffered and paid for by personal fate to the extent that Bulgakov is ” (p. 216).

And instead of explaining the desire of Bulgakov to recognize, “material prosperity” as natural and unhealthy for any writer, Varlamov begins to look for excuses: “ ... but it's not that he wanted to live richly, but he was embarrassed to say this and did not know how to get capital and observe innocence ... Here is the matter ... Tolstoy sought not just for wealthy ... labor ... labor ... labor ... The count could write anywhere and anything, in any state of the soul and body ... And Bulgakov with its threw nerves and a spoiled stomach ”(p. 247). However, the excessive “sensitivity”, “disgust” and “tickling” (p. 247) did not prevent him from closely converging with the Red Count (p. 217).

As a result, Varlamov admits: the entire petty envy of Bulgakov to T. Olstoy, who pulled out “Mikhail Bulgakov from obscurity and poverty” (p. 202), from whom he lended to whom he drank and ate, to which Stalin was jealous, resulted in an evil satire of the “theater novel”.

A talented work, as literary critics like to say, is always wider than the author. Perhaps that is why each time, awkwardly defending Bulgakov, Varlamov, without realizing it, drings him deeper. Where is this “absolute freedom” [3] of the Creator in the 20s, if at the dawn of his career the writer recognizes in his diary: “ My creativity is divided sharply into two parts: genuine and tormented ” (p. 174)? Or is it freedom to systematically force their women to abortion? Or is it the right to easily leave a bored, middle -aged wife, whom he owes his life and the opportunity to create, for the sake of a spectacular diva with bohemian ties, and then quit this one, having met even brighter and a rank higher than the previous ones? Or maybe this is freedom to arrange in his house, at the expense of relatives and friends, a luxurious technique in honor of Alexei Tolstoy, and then with all possible sarcasm to register a labor count in the Theater Roman, turning the circumstances of that dinner from his head to the head? Yes, Bulgakov worthy and freely holds on the interrogation of the GPU in 1926, openly recognizing opposition to the Soviet regime and demanding that the diaries and manuscript of the “dog heart” (p. 332 - 336). But in the Universe created by Varlamov, this is an exception, not a rule. One gets the impression that Bulgakov was a primitive person and lived exclusively with these little “joys”, not interested in anything else, not having special preferences in literature, music, art, and his worldviews ended in his youth.

Memories of the writer's companions are quoted, with special attention to the now popular history of everyday life, that is, love novels and family life, fees, mods and, of course, the apartment issue. But the most important, that is, the connections between the writer’s work and the apartment issue, is not noticeable, with the exception of the most obvious that the author managed to catch: Bulgakov needed recognition, the applause of the public, and for this it is necessary to get the opportunity to appear before her. He with all his might, tormented, betraying loved ones, breaking himself, tried to “fit” - and could not. Because the powerful of this world was recognized by a sharp instinct in Bulgakov a stranger, dangerous. Highlighting his lack of custom work, so contrasting with the sincere “white guard”, “running”, “dog’s heart”, confirmed their suspicions.

Thus, Varlamov and in the book about Bulgakov remains a nonsense, no matter how much he claims the opposite. The technology of “overthrow” is as follows: to paint in great detail and evidence, where and with whom the writer ate, drank, slept, lived, quarreled and whom he betrayed, who was the prototype of one or another character of his works, but at all not to touch the creative process, what, in fact, the writer thought and how his empty and philistine personal life was transformed into fiction.

The meticulousness and lensism of the biographer, his habit of bringing the quote never from context, leads to the fact that his hero of Volens-Nolens turns out to be debunked, and in his place two new blocks are erected in the perception of the reader-Tasya, the first wife of Bulgakov, and Stalin. Particularly bright colors are played by the style and method of Varlamov where it concerns the "Master and Margarita." This is an unfinished novel, to which Bulgakov all the last years of his life unsuccessfully tried to give cosmological completeness, and then he “combed it”, and very badly, the widow of the writer Elena Sergeevna. Apparently, Bulgakov was finally entangled in his vision of the universe, in the understanding of the Light, and the Earthly and Heavenly. By the way, that is why all attempts are meticulous to follow the plot, as well as filming the “philosophical concept” of the novel are doomed to failure.

In all Bulgakov works, claims to philosophy are not too wealthy, and the artistic images of the author of reality, on the contrary, are very strong. One of the main topics in the work of Bulgakov is a person and empire, personality and system. Moreover, not only and not so much the battered problem of the relationship of genius and power, but the relationship of any person with the state, in the tough framework of which there is a society that has generated it. Society itself created a world in which a person can live, and not to vegetate, only in conditions of lack of freedom, constant lies and transactions with conscience, which the ordinary consciousness does not even notice.

But Barlamov’s main novel by Bulgakov is completely different. It turns out that this is “Roman about the Russian year of 1937” (p. 725).

Half of the biography is devoted to the tragic history of the manic attraction of Bulgakov to Stalin, whose image acquired in the inflamed imagination of the master mystical features. If you trust Varlamov, you get the following picture. On April 18, 1930, in the track Friday, a telephone rang out in the removable apartment of the writer, which lit a fire of hope in a tormented heart, with dreams of honors, which were mistakenly obtained by a hated red column. He lit up and incinerated, broke the life of Bulgakov, slowly but inexorably rolled out his immortal soul with a rink, filling each cell of the writer's brain with his thoughts about the grandiose, bottomless, deep and inaccessible personality of Stalin. The Kremlin highlander in a minute conversation promised Bulgakov to work in the Moscow Art Theater and a personal meeting. The first took place, the second turned into a pipe dream and an obsessive idea. Varlamovsky Bulgakov, self -centered, convinced of his chosenness, not a penny of others and suffering from lack of recognition, first encountered a creature that was objectively and metaphysically ready to recognize those who are stronger than him.

Varlamov persistently, throughout the book, pushes the reader to the idea that Bulgakov’s “sunset” novel could not but be a novel about the main person of his life. Stalin called the writer precisely on the day and hour of commemoration of the Cross of Jesus Christ, which the leader, being a graduate of the spiritual school, knew well. There is no doubt that Bulgakov read this call symbolically. Calendar parallels were reflected in the novel: the action of the “Master and Margarita” takes place in a passionate week, and Satan has a ball at the night from Friday to Saturday.

But where is Stalin in the novel? The first thing that comes to mind is the image of Woland, but Varlamov denies this “common place”, calling the identification of Stalin and Woland one of the most fantastic (p. 731 approx.).

The main contender is Pontius Pilate: “Stalin, who defended Bulgakov, lost and handed it away as a man named Pontius Pilate passed the defenseless Yeshua to the Jewish Sanhedrin. And ... it is here that one should look for the key to the answer to the question, in the image of whom the author encrypted by Stalin - of course, not Woland, but the prosecutor ”(p. 441). We are talking about a meeting of Stalin with Ukrainian writers in 1929 regarding the White Guard and the Days of the Turbin, some time after which the White Guard and Anti -Ukrainian play was banned.

Bulgakov, unlike Varlamov, did not read the transcript. Otherwise, the letter addressed to the Secretary General would be withstood in other tones. And then the biographer could boldly say that the Bulgakov fascinated love for the ruler and animal fear of him, the red line passing through the entire book, ruined it much earlier.

Unfortunately, Pontius Pilate Varlamov does not give other evidence “in favor”. It is possible that on the path of the author there were restrictions in the amount of labor, which already exceeded 44 p. Apparently, a full -fledged analysis of the sunset novel had to be sacrificed in the name of the scrupulous preparation of the writer's matrimonial connections. However, if you read the text of Varlamov carefully, another parallel of Stalin’s personality arises: daring and shocking in form, unintelligible in content and, perhaps, unconscious even by the biographer himself.

A special place in the biographical essay of Varlamov is occupied by the history of Batum. Varlamov draws the curve of the creative path of Bulgakov, leading from the "absolute freedom" of the 1920s. Her loss after a conversation with the leader, who magically absorbed this freedom, and then followed the terrible play “Batum” in his mediocrity, the ban on which reduced “ Days, months, possibly years of his life ” (p. 760).

For many years, Bulgakovs are wondering: why is their object of research, which had a reputation of a person honest and not inclined to transactions with the authorities to the Barlamov’s book, engaged in the dramatic glorification of the leader? As a rule, it is believed that Bulgakov did not build any illusions about Batum and wrote it, solely to save himself and the people close to him from the repressive car. And even having written, he could not refuse the truth, implicitly contrasting the bloody dictator who was dictated in the Kremlin depicted in the play of a young fiery revolutionary [4] . But the biographer here draws a different picture: he explains the act of Bulgakov banal: he wanted to be printed. “ He was childishly focused, selfishly thought only of himself, about his talent and a ruined fate, not wanting to reconcile with her until the last, if not days, then months. He was looking for the slightest hint that it would be possible to change something ... ”(p. 766). Although the same desires of Count Tolstoy or Kataev, or Olesha Varlamov, for some reason considers the desires.

According to Elena Sergeevna, the master worked on the play with enthusiasm. He conceived it in 1936, or maybe earlier (p. 760 - 761), when a wave of repression has not yet begun [5] . All the readers of the play were “with a bang” to friends, it was enthusiastically accepted by all theatrical authorities, theaters literally pulled out the right to staging the play from the Moscow Art Theater, and the Bulgakov couple languished in anticipation of the triumph and meeting with the idol (p. 774 - 775).

However, another fate was waiting for the play. At the top she did not like it, and the shocked Bulgakov took it as a personal catastrophe. The failure of Varlamov explains this: “ The problem of this unfortunate play was not that it was a shaky shadow of a compromise. She was conceived, taken out and born without love and was as flawed as her main character ”(p. 771). In our opinion, the reason was rather as follows. It is unlikely that Bulgakov began to write from the conjuncture or self -interest. Otherwise, the play itself would be different. By that time, certain canons of works about Stalin have already begun to take shape, guaranteed success. In addition, the masters of the artistic word did not repress the excess love for the Father and the Genius. Therefore, wish Bulgakov without love to be born with a loyal play, it would not be difficult to concoct it. Motives must be sought in another plane.

Apparently, Bulgakov really wanted to guess Stalin - the man with whom he talked once - a couple of minutes on the phone. But what could he know about the native of the proletarian environment, about which he had no idea, but he despised his whole life and organically hated it? And Stalin was right, not seeing himself in the hero and saying: " Ne was so ."

Автор «Батума» не случайно сильно тревожился, понравится ли его герою пьеса. Современники вспоминают: Сталин действительно интересовал Булгакова [6] , и интересовал, судя по его реакции на то, что пьесу не приняли, весьма болезненным образом. Тем более, если учесть, что никаких санкций после запрета не последовало ни для автора, ни для театра [7] . Булгакову выплатили гонорар. Шума сверху подымать не собирались, а Сталин, приехав в октябре в МХТ, заключил: «пьеса хорошая, но ставить нельзя». То есть складывается впечатление, что Булгаков впал в депрессию не из-за угрозы краха его карьеры (об этом речи не шло), а именно из-за того, что Сталин лично отверг произведение, которое Булгаков видимо считал не агиткой и не подношением, а чем-то гораздо большим. Физический и моральный крах писателя последовал почти мгновенно.

Но на последних страницах биографии Варламов, вставший с хронометром у постели умирающего писателя, имя той силе, которая породила Воланда и Иешуа, но которую Булгаков ни разу не назвал. Согласно Варламову, жизнь мастера оборвалась на «Батуме», не потому что «диктатор рассчитал» или время пришло, а потому что «не та карта пришла… пиковая дама нахально подмигнула ему левым глазом» (с. 778). « Диктатор ничего не рассчитывал — он был лишь инструментом в руках судьбы. А вот она, похоже, действительно все рассчитала », — пишет наш литератор и тем начинает убийственную в своей отстраненности хронику последних недель жизни Булгакова.

Булгаков уходил мучительно и страшно. Казалось бы, хоть здесь следовало оставить умирающего в покое, но и в последней главе беспристрастный биограф муссирует фигуру Сталина, о котором — своем вдохновителе и тайном покровителе — «не переставал думать» Булгаков до самой смерти. Эта смерть — в Прощеное воскресенье, 10 марта 1940 года, располагает Варламова к новым соображениям на сквозную для его книги тему «Булгаков и православие»: « Прощеное воскресенье. И это, пожалуй, главный аргумент в споре о том, кому досталась после смерти душа сына профессора богословия и классной дамы из уездного городка » (с. 793 – 794).

В итоге, несмотря на обилие физиологических, материальных подробностей и пространных цитат, в книге оказались совершенно потерянными и личность, и творчество Булгакова. Спутав жизненный путь человека историей его повседневности, биограф, к сожалению, упустил, что какие бы претензии, обоснованные или нет, ни предъявлять к Булгакову: к «еретичеству», конформизму, преклонению перед властью, непорядочности в личных отношениях — писатель для автора биографии всегда должен оставаться прежде всего писателем, а не потребителем, алчущим желтых щегольских штиблет, черной икры и квартиры в элитном доме. Творцом тех образов, которые, хочется нам того или нет, продолжают жить своей беспокойной жизнью — как Иешуа, Воланд и пятый прокуратор Иудеи всадник Понтий Пилат.

* * *

[1] Яновская Л . М. Творческий путь Михаила Булгакова. М., 1983; Чудакова М. О. Жизнеописание Михаила Булгакова. М.: Книга, 1988; Смелянский А. М. Михаил Булгаков в Художественном театре: 2 изд., доп. М., 1989; Творчество Михаила Булгакова: исследования, материалы, библиография. СПб., 1991; Немцев В. И. Трагедия истины. Самара, 2003 и др.

[2] Российская газета. № 4598. 27.02.2008.

[3] Российская газета. № 4598. 27.02.2008.

[4] Булгаков М. А . Пьесы 1930-х годов / Т еатральное наследие. СПб., 1994. С. 657.

[5] Эти тезисы, безусловно, обоснованны хорошо известными фактами. Так, 18 февраля 1936 г. Булгаков разговаривал с директором МХТ и сказал, что «единственная тема, которая его интересует для пьесы, это тема о Сталине» (Булгаков М. А . Пьесы 1930-х годов / Т еатральное наследие. СПб., 1994. С. 642).

[6] Лосев Ю. И. Комментарии // Булгаков М. А . Собрание сочинений в восьми томах. СПб., 2002. Т. 8. С. 686.

[7] Булгаков М. А . Пьесы 1930‑х годов / Т еатральное наследие. СПб., 1994. С. 665.