Michail Boelgakov: Hondehart

Michail Boelgakov: Hondehart

Björn Roose

Mikhail Bulgakov, Marko Fondse (Translator),

Ex: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3886206374?rto=friend_update_daily_us&ref_=pe_41736990_574060880_review

Wie mijn boekbesprekingen volgt, zal zich misschien herinneren dat ik er eind augustus 2019 (het lijkt alweer een eeuwigheid geleden) een publiceerde over een ander werk van Michail Boelgakov, Zoja’s appartement . Ik verwijs graag naar die bespreking voor wie iets meer wil vernemen over de achtergrond van Boelgakov, maar begin de bespreking van Hondehart even graag met de conclusie van die vorige bespreking: “Voor de duidelijkheid: ik hoor niet tot de kaste van aan wal staande stuurlui. Het was ongetwijfeld in de Sovjet-Unie net zomin gemakkelijk voor je mening uit te komen als in nationaal-socialistisch Duitsland en er zal ook dáár weinig opdeling te maken geweest zijn tussen zwart en wit (een poging die in deze tijden uiteraard wél blijvend ondernomen wordt). Maar het is zonde gezien het talent dat Boelgakov in andere werken getoond heeft. Ik heb jaren geleden genoten van zijn Hondenhart (sic), dat in 1925 werd verboden en dat een heel erg duidelijke kritiek op het regime vormde. Of zoals de Sovjet-krant Izvestia op 15 september 1929 schreef: "Zijn talent is overduidelijk, maar zo is ook het reactionair sociaal karakter van zijn werk". Ik heb zijn voornaamste werk De Meester en Margarita nog niet gelezen - het boek waaraan hij tussen 1928 en het jaar van zijn overlijden, 1940, werkte -, maar ook dát zou een knappe parodie zijn op Stalin en het leven in de Sovjet-Unie. Dat maakt helaas dingen als deze tweede versie van Zoja's appartement én de kniebuigingen van Boelgakov voor Stalin en het regime alleen maar spijtiger.”

Ik heb dus nog steeds De Meester en Margarita niet gelezen (dat komt er een dezer maanden sowieso van), maar wel Hondehart (zonder tussen-n dus) opnieuw. En het boek was nog steeds zo goed als ik me herinnerde. Beter zelfs. Korte samenvatting (spoiler alert) op de achterflap van dit 140 bladzijden dikke paperbackje: “Hondehart is tegelijk de Frankenstein-achtige geschiedenis van een hond én een verbeten satire op bepaalde praktijken in het vroeg-bolsjewistische Rusland. Half verhongerd en met brandwonden overdekt wordt de hond gevonden en meegenomen door een beroemde chirurg, die zich heeft gespecialiseerd in verjongingskuren en nu een grote nieuwe stunt, een waarlijk revolutionair experiment voorheeft. De hond wordt geopereerd en krijgt de testikels en hersenen van een kort tevoren bij een gevecht omgekomen balalaikaspeler. De hond wordt nu snel: kameraad Sjarikov! Maar hij blijft als mens een monstruositeit. Zijn wezenlijke hondenatuur blijkt onveranderbaar. Hij slaat obscene taal uit, valt vrouwen op brute wijze lastig, elimineert op sadistische wijze katten, steelt, morst, probeert zelfs de assistent van de professor neer te schieten. Het experiment blijkt een jammerlijke blunder te zijn geweest: de mens met het hondehart moet maar weer hond worden.”

Zo, om de clue te weten te komen, moet u het boekje al niet meer lezen, maar u zal allicht ook niet meer opkijken van het feit dat dit werk in de Sovjet-Unie niet mocht gepubliceerd worden (helaas dook het in het Westen ook pas op toen hij al overleden was, net zoals De Meester en Margarita trouwens). Een duidelijker kritiek op het idee van de maakbare mens is nauwelijks denkbaar. En daarmee vormt het boek eigenlijk net zo goed een aanklacht tegen het nationaal-socialisme of tegen volstrekt waanzinnige moderne vormen van utopieën genre de veelbesproken Great Reset. Je kan de mens wel uit het vuilnis halen, maar niet het vuilnis uit de mens. Je kan de mens proberen aan te passen aan je communistische, nationaal-socialistische, post-modernistische ideetjes, maar de mens zal altijd een mens blijven en zelfs als er geen externe factoren meespelen – iets waar mensen als Klaus Schwab vurig naar streven door de hele wereld mee te slepen in hun waanzin –, zal je utopie aan dat simpele feit ten onder gaan.

Alleen zitten verstandige mensen daar niet op te wachten: ze weten ook dat de revolutie z’n kinderen opvreet en dat er een hele hoop kinderen zullen opgevreten zijn vooraleer de revolutie sterft. De “beroemde chirurg” waarvan sprake, Filipp Filippovitsj Preobrazjenski, beseft dat ook, maar vooraleer hij zichzelf zo ver kan krijgen niet alleen pas op de plaats te maken, maar ook rechtsomkeer, is er hoe dan ook al massa’s schade gedaan. En dan is Preobrazjenski nog bereid datgene te doen waar “experten” en politici voor zover ik weet – en ik kan me vergissen, maar laat iemand dan met een tegenvoorbeeld komen – nog nooit in geslaagd zijn: fouten erkennen en die niet proberen op te lossen door verder te gaan op het ten onrechte ingeslagen pad.

Vooraleer het zover komt – want dat gebeurt uiteraard pas op het einde van het boek – krijg je echter een schitterend boekje te lezen. Beginnend met een hoofdstuk waar de hond, sjarik in het Russisch, zijn gedachten de vrije loop laat terwijl ie ligt te creperen, een persoonsverwisseling waar de auteur aardig in geslaagd is (ik heb dit eerder gezien met een veulen, maar kan me niet meer herinneren in welk boek precies).

Gevolgd door een hoofdstuk waarin het beest de operatiekamer ingelokt wordt en de chirurg er behalve wat worst ook een stukje filosofie tegenaan gooit als hij door zijn assistent gevraagd wordt hoe hij de hond heeft meegekregen: “Kwestie van aanhalen. Dat is de enige manier waarop je wat bereikt bij levende wezens. Met terreur kom je nergens, ongeacht het ontwikkelingspeil van een dier.” Waarna dat dier ook te weten komt dat hij dan wel nieuwe testikels heeft gekregen, maar ook ontmand is: “‘Pas op, jij, of ik maak je af! Weest u maar niet bang, hij bijt niet.’ ‘Bijt ik niet?’ vroeg de hond zich verbaasd af.” En waarin we kennis maken met het “huisbestuur”, de club van communistische zeloten die ervoor moeten zorgen dat Preobrazjenski datgene doet wat ook in Dokter Zjivago van Boris Pasternak een belangrijk thema is: zijn appartement delen met alsmaar meer mensen (“inwonerstalverdichting”, zoals dat in Hondehart genoemd wordt). Op het einde van dat hoofdstuk krijgen we deze heerlijke dialoog, een dialoog die ik heden ten dage eigenlijk niet genoeg hoor. Een dialoog waarin simpelweg gezegd wordt dat iemand iets ook niet kan willen omdat hij het gewoon niet wil:

“‘… wilde ik u voorstellen …’ – bij die woorden rukte de vrouw uit haar boezem een aantal kleurige en van de sneeuw nat geworden tijdschriften, ‘een paar bladen te kopen van de kinderen in Duitsland. Een halve roebel per stuk.’

‘Nee, geen behoefte aan,’ antwoordde Filipp Filippovitsj kortaf met een schuinse blik op de blaadjes.

Op hun gezichten tekende zich nu volslagen verbijstering af en het gezicht van de vrouw hulde zich in een framboosrode gloed.

‘Waarom weigert u?’

‘Ik wil ze niet.’

‘Voelt u dan niet mee met de Duitse kinderen?’

‘Zeker wel.’

‘Kijkt u dan soms op een halve roebel?’

‘Nee.’

‘Waarom neemt u er dan geen?’

‘Ik wil niet.’”

Even vertaald naar vandaag de dag en kwestie dat wie er mij ooit om vraagt het nu al weet:

“‘… wilde ik u voorstellen …’ – bij die woorden rukte de dokter uit zijn lade een doorzichtige en van kwijl nat geworden spuit, ‘een vaccin te nemen tegen corona. Gratis.’

‘Nee, geen behoefte aan,’ antwoordde Björn Roose kortaf met een schuinse blik op de spuit.

Op het gezicht van de dokter tekende zich nu volslagen verbijstering af.

‘Waarom weigert u?’

‘Ik wil het niet.’

‘Voelt u dan niet mee met onze zwakkeren?’

‘Zeker wel.’

‘Bent u bang?’

‘Nee.’

‘Waarom neemt u er dan geen?’

‘Ik wil niet.’”

Soit, verder naar het volgende hoofdstuk. Daarin begint de langzame transformatie van hond tot mens (of van mens tot de nationaal-socialistische versie van Nietzsches Übermensch, of van koelak tot communist) en leert het beest dat het goed is geketend te zijn. Liever een dikke hond aan de ketting dan een magere wolf in het bos. “De volgende dag kreeg de hond een brede, glimmende halsband om. Toen hij zich in de spiegel bekeek, was hij het eerste moment knap uit zijn humeur. Met de staart tussen de poten trok hij zich in de badkamer terug, zich afvragend hoe hij het ding zou kunnen doorschuren tegen een kist of een hutkoffer. Maar algauw drong het tot hem door dat hij gewoon een idioot was. Zina nam hem aan de lijn mee uit wandelen door de Oboechovlaan. De hond liep erbij als een arrestant en brandde van schaamte. Maar eenmaal voorbij de Christuskerk op de Pretsjistenka was hij er al helemaal achter wat een halsband in dit leven betekent. Bezeten afgunst stond te lezen in de ogen van alle honden die hij tegen kwam en ter hoogte van het Dodenpad blafte een uit zijn krachten gegroeide straatkeffer hem uit voor ‘rijkeluisflikker’ en ‘zespoot’. Toen zij de tramrails overhuppelden keek een agent van milietsie tevreden en met respect naar de halsband (…) Zo’n halsband is net een aktentas, grapte de hond in gedachte en wiebelend met zijn achterwerk schreed hij op naar de bel-etage als een heer van stand.” Of, zoals het in het volgende hoofdstuk al heet: “Maak je zelf maar niets wijs, jij zoekt heus de vrijheid niet meer op, treurde de hond snuivend. Die ben je ontwend. Ik ben een voornaam hondedier, een intelligent wezen, ik heb een beter bestaan leren kennen. En wat is de vrijheid helemaal? Rook, een fictie, een drogbeeld, anders niet … Een koortsdroom van die rampzalige democraten …”

Maar dat beter bestaan komt met meer en meer plichten een keer je de babyfase voorbij bent, een keer je bekering in kannen en kruiken is, een keer je niet meer terug kan: Sjarikov wordt geacht beleefd te zijn, zijn plaats te kennen, wil “documenten” hebben (“Een document is de belangrijkste aangelegenheid ter wereld.”), wordt er door de communisten op gewezen dat hij “klassebewustzijn” moet kweken, terwijl hij in essentie – opnieuw – alleen maar wil vreten en achter katten aan zitten, wat dan ook precies is wat hij doet. Terwijl hij wel meer en meer eisen stelt aan zijn omgeving, want die doet niet precies wat hij wil.

Samengevat: Hondehart is een filosofisch tractaat zoals ook Frankenstein van Mary Shelley er een is (zoals aangegeven op de achterflap heeft de thematiek duidelijke raakvlakken). Maar wel een filosofisch tractaat dat leuk om lezen is, zelfs voor mensen die er niet meer in willen zien dan een verhaal van een hond die mens wordt en vervolgens weer hond. Ik weet niet of het boekje in recentere jaren nog ergens werd uitgegeven in het Nederlands (mijn exemplaar verscheen in 1969 bij de voor de gelegenheid met Uitgeverij De Arbeiderspers samenwerkende Em. Querido’s Uitgeverij in Amsterdam in een vertaling van Marko Fondse – derde druk van 1975), maar ik zou het zowel de liefhebbers van Russische literatuur, dissidenten, anti-communisme, anti-utopisme als de minder in filosofie maar dan toch in kortere vlot leesbare boeken aanraden. Een must read dus!

By Martin Kalyniuk

Ex: http://www.southoftheeast.org

Bulgakov Against Atheism

 “We will strike out against Bulgakovism!”[i]

And Bulgakov returned fire.

I would have preferred a title more along the lines of “Bulgakov Against Little-mindedness.” “Narrow-mindedness” maybe? But it seems to me, and I believe it seemed to him, that atheism is sufficiently synonymous with either.

Mikhail Bulgakov is my favourite writer. My teacher—Headmaster of the school that I attend. I am assuming the reader will have read something by him. I won’t be providing a little biography of him of my own either. For that kind of a basic introduction, I confidently refer anyone interested to a good little article originally published in Russian Life entitled “Mikhail Bulgakov: A Wolf’s Life.”

Throughout the whole of his literary career Bulgakov thoughtfully engaged what was wrong in the society, and its thinking, in which he himself lived.

Where it went wrong in its thinking was official State irreligiousness, wishfully called “scientific atheism.”

Everything wrong in Soviet society stemmed out from there.

In his novels this is perfectly apparent. We’ll save the best known, Master and Margarita, for last. This will preserve an order both logical and chronological, as it was his final work and master-piece as well as his fullest attack on atheism and its allied ills.

In The White Guard the opinions of the Turbins over the table, with vodka and wine as encouragement, are very clear. The Revolution is destructive, idiotic and unwanted. The response in Kiev has been disgraceful, opportunistic and left it until too late. For free Ukraine “from Kiev to Berlin” there is only one option: “Orthodoxy and monarchy!”

Setting to one side Bulgakov’s feuilletons—written for bread, not to say something—we will look a little at the three major short-stories he wrote when in Moscow: Diaboliad, The Fatal Eggs and Dog’s Heart.

The Short Fiction

Diaboliad is best for its unique prose. It’s practice almost for the writer, the first flight, a getting used and accustomed to a new self-awareness and the exercise of a power not known prior. Margarita on her broomstick. Bulgakov before Diaboliad wanted to be a writer. When he wrote Diaboliad—he was.

Its protagonist loses his job, at the Main Central Base for Matchstick Materials (MACBAMM), in unbelievable circumstances and ends diving off of a building—an open question whether it was insanity, supernatural or just Soviet.

The atmosphere established is eerie. Bulgakov has already here located the absurd fact that Soviet society actually embodied what it denied. It may have consciously rejected the existence of the demonic, but the existence of such a society was itself proof of it.

That is the major theme, tucked neatly under criticism of the housing situation and failures in economic policy. He is already creatively careful not to aim too openly at the target he really wants to hit. He will eventually have to summon up history, demonology, feign blasphemy and employ luxuriant symbolism to say everything he needs to.

Next came The Fatal Eggs. [Quick aside: it was originally published together with Diaboliad in May 1925]

A professor single-mindedly dedicated to his work has made a remarkable discovery. A ray that fantastically increases the rate of reproduction and the size of their off-spring in amphibians. A local journalist, with stereotypical sensationalism, publishes an article that misrepresents the discovery in a way most likely to hold the interest of his readers.

At just that time a disease decimates the poultry population of the USSR. An idiot has a bright idea—use the ray to produce excess, giant chickens to make up for the losses. The ray is taken from the professor and relocated to a rural area for the purpose.

A postal worker does his proverbial poor job and confuses two different loads of eggs. One has harmless chicken eggs and is intended for the ray. The other has a variety of unhatched serpents and is meant to arrive at the Institute where the professor works. It instead arrives at the farm.

The ray is then used to unintentionally produce an invasion of giant snakes that devastate the countryside. The civil authority and military are incapable of stopping them as they slither toward the capital. Humanly-speaking, all hope is lost.

But during the Dormition of Mother of God on the Orthodox Calendar (which Bulgakov continued to use even after the Soviet authorities had changed to the Gregorian), an unheard of frost, with no comparison available in even the oldest people’s memories, happens to kill them off. What a curious coincidence it was. And the reader’s attention is drawn to the dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour at just that moment in the narrative when Moscow is saved.

Here again we see the development, the birth and beginning of ideas which will find fuller expression later on in his work.

Isn’t this man imagining he can control his own life without reference to any higher order outside of himself? But Bulgakov has Providence provide a miracle that saves Moscow. Later on his mood has changed. Berlioz beheaded by a tram will serve to make the same point.

The main concern here is the belief, commonly held by people not Communists today, that science can essentially solve all problems. This simplistic idea tends to dangerous results when taken too far. We are slowly realising this. Bulgakov saw it in 1924. What disasters are in store if we don’t learn the lesson, God only knows.

And now we move onto the final major short-story —Dog’s Heart. Here the writer is too open, too incisive, his aim too obvious. It was never published for as long as he lived. And when at last it was, it was published abroad (in 1968).

It begins from the dog’s perspective, the stray Sharik. After lamenting his cruel fate, moments before having been scalded by a cook for stealing, an inordinate improvement in his luck follows. Professor Filipp Filoppovich takes him, takes care of him and treats him kindly. But there is a motive other than humane behind it all.

As an experiment Sharik’s scrotum and hypophysis are removed and replaced by human equivalents. He survives the operation and a most unusual result unfolds—he slowly becomes human.

He begins to speak, becomes bipedal and eventually his personality merges with that of the deceased man whose testicles and pituitary gland he possesses.

Sharik changes his name to Polygraph Polygraphovich Sharikov and gets a job in the Moscow Department of Communal Welfare (for the extermination of cats and other foul rodents). Eventually entertaining a proletarian dislike for professor Filipp Filippovich, he avails himself of the easy-going informing policy of the Soviet government (not unlike present-day Kiev) to try and get him arrested. The professor’s hand forced, he manages to reverse the operation.

Here again we have science taken too far without sufficient thought given to the consequences liable to follow. But unlike professor Persikov of The Fatal Eggs—Filipp Filoppovich is a type as well as a character.

He is everything Bulgakov wished he could have been. A practising doctor with private customers and a large flat—safe through influential patients from any sudden moods of the government.

Characterised by class and taste, the professor is the exact opposite of the new Soviet man embodied in comrade Sharikov.

Bulgakov’s point is double-edged. It cuts twice with one stroke. That a dog made into a man could succeed in Soviet society and that ultimately the stray dog was better than the man it became.

There is furthermore an important insight into the cultural impact of an atheistic mind-set. In a society where the greatest goods are not religion or art or the humanities but rather manual labour and material possessions and creature comforts—the consequence is crassness.

The spoken-language deteriorates. So too what interests and amuses people. The public attention span dwindles. Everyone looks out for themselves and selfishness reigns. We have a dense, insensitive society where even such basic things as that seniority dictates who gets the first glass of vodka are lost.

And isn’t this timely now? Is it not perfectly applicable to the modern and Western situation?

We live in a time where people cannot work out how to use the past tense correctly or navigate the “th” sound. “Wif” and “dis” and so on.

Anything short of practically pornography or violence won’t stand a chance of selling or being aired.

A fast-food quality of intelligence now exists. You look at your phone, supposedly know in a snap-shot everything about something long enough to insist on your opinion about it and then promptly forget what you might have learned, comfortable in the knowledge that you can just Google it again if need be.

Do I need to provide any examples of selfishness reigning? I’ll dare not to.

Master and Margarita

Finally we come to the masterpiece.

Mikhail Bulgakov was a priest’s son, a professor at Kiev Theological Academy—Afanasy Ivanovich.

His death when the future writer was only 15 years old shook the boy’s faith in that God is Benevolent and All-knowing. But for Bulgakov conscious disbelief in the God of the Orthodox Church did not entail an a priori atheism, least of all of the simplistic and materialist kind sponsored by the Soviet State.

Why should there be no soul or spiritual world even if God as traditionally defined (admittedly altogether imperfectly) didn’t exist? That, for Bulgakov, did not follow.

In the years after he renounced his baptism up until he regained his faith in the God of his father he pursued different definitions and looked in the opposite direction to materialism, into spiritism. He was convinced that there was more to the universe than bare sensory phenomena.

And what could possibly justify the opposite claim? Could constitute positive proof that all that is, is necessarily material? And what of the numerous immediately obvious instances where it fails?

Concepts are not material, but they do exist. Materialism itself being one of them.

Individuals as persons are not material. Were I to lose a limb I would not be less Martin Kalyniuk than I was before.

Time exists I think. It isn’t material.

And it is not only this metaphysical cage that materialist atheists lock themselves in and throw away the key to. A moral narrowness follows on the mental one.

I repeat—in the master-piece the Master’s mood has changed. The devil is coming to Moscow. Not a swarm of snakes but the Serpent himself. The ancient one that began by exposing the infidelity of humanity’s parents to the God that made them. And he is back to expose and punish modern materialist man, with his closed mechanist universe and narrow pursuit of personal gratification.

The Devil rides out in Moscow. Painting by Aleksandr Kurushin.

It’s instructive that he begins with Berlioz. Berlioz’s crime is atheism. His denial that Christ existed in history, that God exists since eternity and his insistence that even Satan himself, who Berlioz is speaking with (!), does not exist either. We have to laugh with the devil.

Well, now, this is really getting interesting,” he cried shaking with laughter, “What is it with you? Whatever comes up you say doesn’t exist!

His punishment begins in time by the separation of his head from his body by a tram. It culminates in eternity when the devil gives him his wish.

Speaking to his severed, conscious head,

You were always an avid proponent of the theory that after his head is cut off, a man’s life comes to an end, he turns to dust, and departs into non-being. I have the pleasure of informing you in the presence of my guests—although they actually serve as proof of a different theory altogether—that your theory is both incisive and sound. However, one theory is as good as another. There is even a theory that says that to each man it will be given according to his beliefs. May it be so! You are departing into non-being, and, from the goblet into which you are being transformed, I will have the pleasure of drinking a toast to being!

Berlioz didn’t believe in life after death. Berlioz believed man is essentially a very complex material object. His final retribution is to be made into one, though a very simple one, a goblet, out of which a toast is made to the immortality he denied so vehemently.

And everyone is punished.

Laziness and fakery—Likhodeyev. Fraud—Nikanor Ivanovich. Generally being an annoyance—Bengalsky. Vanity—basically the whole female population of Moscow. Greed—everyone to a man. Spousal infidelity—Arkady Apollonovich. Blasphemy and cursing—Prokhor Petrovich. Covetousness—Maximilian Andreyevich. Informing and betrayal—Baron Maigel. And, the worst sin of all according to Bulgakov, cowardice—the cruel fifth procurator of Judea, the knight Pontius Pilate.

And what is most interesting above all, is that we feel nothing for them. Bulgakov has not invested any of them with pathos. They are not human beings. Not at all. Bulgakov has made them into what they wish to be—puppets. Mere material objects bumping into each other, with a pre-set selection of pursuits, wishes and desires as in a puppet-show.

They lack life. They have no depth. This is why Berlioz’s or Bengalsky’s head comes off and we don’t feel horror or revulsion. We may rather laugh. But we most certainly don’t bat an eyelid, leave aside shed a tear, between that occurrence and the sentence to follow.

And this narrowness of ideas and aims, shallowness of character and conduct, littleness of mind and heart are all the direct consequence and conclusion of the conviction that we are just finite, material toys trapped in time and space. Without purpose, without ultimate accountability and with no future beyond the short, uncertain span of our life on earth.

The ideas from the short-stories have been refined and sharpened. All the threads are drawn together, tight to breaking point—and Woland, Begemot, Koroviev, Gella and Azazello are here to cut them.

Man the material object meets spirit, even if evil. The atheist’s mechanical closed universe is invaded by beings that existed before it and who know of far more than it (the fifth dimension for example). And so far from being based on the empirical and experiential, so dogmatic is “scientific atheism” that Berlioz can try and convince the devil himself that he doesn’t exist.

This dogmatism of materialist atheism is the last point I should like underscore before closing this essay.

Fiction has the marvellous quality to it that you can’t argue with it. Like maths or a thought-experiment, you agree to play by rules. The cardinal rule is that what the narrator says is so. This gives the writer the power to make you think about things that you otherwise not for a single moment’s time would have entertained on your own.

Everything that has happened in Bulgakov’s Moscow—has happened. In the context of the novel, that’s a fact. “And” as the devil says to Berlioz’s head “a fact is the most stubborn thing in the world.” What do puppets do when confronted with them? Exactly what they do in actual life.

As always when something is reported that would seem to compel us to broaden our understanding of the way the world works—psychology is called in.

One person saw something exceeding a narrow understanding of the laws of the universe? He’s schizophrenic. Several people? Mass hallucination. And who’s responsible for the seeming events that didn’t occur? For everyone saw them, even if not a violation of the laws of nature.

“It was the work of a gang of hypnotists and ventriloquists magnificently skilled in their art.” ?!

Bulgakov’s final stab is his hardest. The way he wraps up the novel by providing naturalistic explanations that explain nothing but satisfy everyone and parade about behind the banners of scientific terms. There can be nothing more idiotic than these explanations. But how many people, during Bulgakov’s time, and, I stress, in the West today would readily venture or accept them if (or when) confronted with the same thing?

Could you believe that the devil exists? If one hot spring evening, just as the sun was going down, he sat next to you too?

---

[i] Ударим по булгаковщине!

(Title of an article published in a Soviet magazine during the writer’s lifetime and found among 297 other such collected articles in his private papers)

Vite nella Rivoluzione: Michail Bulgakov.

di Sandro Moiso

Ex: http://www.carmillaonline.it

Marietta Čudakova, Michail Bulgakov. Cronaca di una vita, Odoya, Bologna 2013, pp. 480, euro 30,00

“La morte
si sconta
vivendo”
(G.Ungaretti, 1916)

Se la storia della letteratura russa prodotta in età sovietica, e soprattutto durante l’era di Stalin, è già di per sé drammatica, la lettura dell’opera di Marietta Čudakova dedicata alla biografia di Michail Afanas’evič Bulgakov può risultare addirittura straziante.
Basato su lettere, testimonianze e, soprattutto nella parte finale, sui diari della terza moglie di Bulgakov, Elena Sergeevna Bulgakova, il testo ricostruisce esattamente la cronaca, ordinata per periodi triennali, della vita del grande scrittore russo.

Marietta Čudakova può probabilmente ancora essere considerata, a livello internazionale, la massima esperta bulgakoviana. Teorica letteraria e scrittrice va considerata fra le più alte autorità nel panorama critico letterario russo e, oltre ad insegnare presso l’Istituto Letterario Gor’kij di Mosca, è stata visiting professor all’Università del South Carolina, a Stanford e all’École Normale Supérieure di Parigi. Inoltre, è la presidentessa della Fondazione Bulgakov e ha curato l’introduzione di molte opere dello stesso pubblicate in Italia.

Ma proprio questa cronaca, importante sia per chi è interessato alla storia della letteratura di età sovietica quanto per chi lo è nei confronti dell’era di Stalin, costituisce il coronamento della sua attività e, quasi sicuramente, di una vita. Infatti, dal 1965 al 1984 l’autrice ha lavorato al Dipartimento dei Manoscritti della Biblioteca di Stato dell’URSS, svolgendo un ruolo fondamentale nell’acquisizione dell’archivio personale dell’autore custodito dalla vedova Elena Sergeevna, grazie alla quale i suoi lavori inediti (quasi tutti) furono salvati dall’oblio e pubblicati molti anni dopo la sua morte. La prima edizione della biografia risale in Russia al 1988 e ha costituito fino ad oggi il primo ed autorevole studio approfondito sulla vita dello scrittore.

Vita che ha inizio a Kiev nel 1891, in una famiglia profondamente intrisa dalla tradizione culturale e religiosa russo-ortodossa, socialmente lontana dagli ambienti in cui si formava solitamente l’intelligencija. Laureatosi in Medicina, si troverà coinvolto prima nei drammi del primo conflitto mondiale e, in seguito, in quelli della guerra civile, durante la quale, proprio per tradizione famigliare, egli parteggerà per le armate bianche anche se il suo coinvolgimento sarà sempre legato, prima di tutto, alla sua professione medica.

La Čudakova è abilissima nel collegare, sempre, alle fasi della vita di Bulgakov le pagine dei suoi racconti e dei suoi romanzi. Risulta, infatti, chiaramente che fin dai primi scritti, pubblicati su vari giornali, e fino a quelli pubblicati, poi, su alcune riviste letterarie sovietiche e dal primo romanzo, “La guardia bianca”, fino al suo capolavoro “Il Maestro e Margherita”, ogni pagina dell’autore russo è impregnata di autobiografismo.

Costantemente “mosso dalla volontà di trasformare il rapporto tra «biografia» e «creazione»”, si possono individuare “ nel processo creativo di Bulgakov [...] due movimenti convergenti. Da un lato le riflessioni sulle proprie scelte e sul proprio destino si vestono di mire letterarie e vengono acconciate nella cornice di un’idea a essa precedente. Dall’altro il romanzo (in questo caso “Il Maestro e Margherita” – NdA), con le questioni che tocca e la sua extratemporalità [...], non può che lasciare un segno sull’interpretazione dei problemi autobiografici di chi scrive, inducendolo a guardare alla propria vita come qualcosa che dal tempo è slegato. Alle conseguenze di scelte fatali non c’è rimedio [...] e chi cerca aiuto in Satana e lega per sempre le sue sorti al diavolo ( e dunque «non merita la luce») ne pagherà lo scotto in eterno” (pag.358).

La questione, qui efficacemente sintetizzata dalla Čudakova, non è di poco conto, perché se, da un lato, apre ad una riflessione sull’opera letteraria in generale, dall’altro ricollega l’opera di Bulgakov non solo alle scelte morali, politiche e culturali dello stesso ma, più in generale, al destino di tutti i letterati, e non solo, dell’epoca staliniana in cui l’autore si trovò a vivere.
Nel primo caso, la riflessione rende evidente che spesso le maggiori opere degli autori più importanti della letteratura universale, da Dante Alighieri a Louis-Ferdinand Céline, da Giacomo Leopardi a Franz Kafka e da Marcel Proust allo stesso Michail Bulgakov, solo per citarne alcuni e molto diversi tra loro, sono il risultato proprio di un processo in cui l’autobiografismo, trasfigurato in elemento romanzesco, si eleva al di sopra della misera vita individuale per diventare invece lo specchio delle ansie, delle delusioni e delle speranze dell’intera specie umana.

Mentre nel secondo, pur rimanendo anch’esso un tema universale della grande letteratura, la questione delle scelte individuali in tempi di dittatura totalitaria, anche se travestita da “comunista” o “proletaria”, rende chiaro come il “libero arbitrio” degli artisti, dei letterati e degli intellettuali, anche se si potrebbe affermare la stessa cosa per tutti i cittadini, finisce quasi sempre con l’essere estremamente condizionato dall’autoritarismo e dalle giravolte ideologico-politiche di chi sta al potere. Fatto che, proprio in epoca staliniana, raggiunse i vertici dell’assurdo e dell’auto-cannibalismo.

Bulgakov non volle, non seppe e non poté mai dichiararsi bolscevico o avvicinarsi all’ideologia del partito comunista russo e, proprio per questo motivo, si trovò a vivere culturalmente e letterariamente come un escluso , come un vero e proprio paria. Ma anche coloro che, come tanti autori da Majakovskij a Mandel’štam e da Mejerchol’d a Isaak Babel’ fino a Boris Pilniak, avevano abbracciato la causa rivoluzionaria fin dal suo primo apparire, avrebbero pagato un crudele tributo di sangue sull’altare del piccolo padre di tutte le Russie. Chi col suicidio, chi con la deportazione e lo sfinimento fisico, chi con la fucilazione. La stessa sorte che toccò a tutta la vecchia guardia bolscevica, da Bucharin a Kamenev, e ai migliori generali dell’armata rossa come Michail Tukhachevsky. Anche a coloro che avevano voltato, per tempo, le spalle a Trockij e all’Opposizione operaia.

Scelte fatali, appunto, che non lasciano rimedio. Sicuramente quella di Bulgakov di non piegarsi al potere, anche quando questo si rivolse a lui direttamente, con una telefonata dello stesso Stalin cui, evidentemente, lo scrittore non seppe o non volle dare le giuste risposte. Oppure il rifiuto opposto a chi, ancora nella primavera del 1938 gli chiese di scrivere un romanzo sovietico d’avventura: “«Tiratura imponente, traduzioni in tutte le lingue, soldi a palate – anche valuta estera – e un Assegno seduta stante, come anticipo. Che ne dice?» Bulgakov rifiuta: «Non posso»” Al che lo stesso incaricato lo convince – a fatica – a leggergli “Il Maestro e Margherita”:”Dopo i primi tre capitoli commenta: «Questo non si pubblica di certo». «Perché?» chiede Bulgakov. «Perché no»” (pag. 440).

E’ il destino dell’autore: apprezzato come scrittore e commediografo dai vertici del Partito e dallo stesso Stalin che, insieme a Kirov e Zdanov, assistette svariate volte alla rappresentazione della sua opera teatrale “I giorni dei Turbin” (tratta proprio da quella “Guardia bianca”, mai pubblicata integralmente in patria); ignorato come autore della stessa opera che fu rappresentata centinaia di volte mentre Bulgakov era in vita; inascoltato nei suoi appelli per avere a disposizione almeno una nuova macchina da scrivere o un permesso, per lui e la moglie, per recarsi all’estero per un breve periodo e, infine, costantemente rifiutato come autore di opere letterarie e teatrali sempre apprezzate, in prima battuta, ma quasi mai realmente pubblicate o rappresentate in seguito.

Una vita artistica e personale costantemente rimossa, spinta ai margini della vita culturale o della vita tout court se si pensa alle costanti difficoltà economiche cui l’autore dovette sempre far fronte. Spesso disperatamente. Ma, soprattutto, una vita che costantemente ostacolata nelle sue manifestazioni letterarie ed artistiche si trasformava, di fatto per l’autore, in una non vita. Rimozioni e divieti che, alla fine, accomunarono Bulgakov ad altri autori sovietici, ma dei quali, almeno, non condivise l’onta di aver denunciato altri nel tentativo di affermarsi o sopravvivere, come era invece successo a Boris Pasternak, nell’estate del 1936, quando, insieme a Kostantin Fedin e molti altri, aveva firmato l’esortazione del Direttivo dell’Unione degli Scrittori ad “applicare ai nemici del popolo la pena massima della difesa socialista: fatelo per il bene dell’umanità!” pubblicato sulla Pravda con l’inquietante titolo: “Cancellateli dalla faccia della terra!” che avrebbe, di fatto , inaugurato la stagione dei grandi processi di Mosca e del terrore staliniano.

No, non cercò mai la vendetta o il compromesso Bulgakov. La sua arma era la scrittura, spesso fortemente ironica, come nella migliore tradizione russa da Puskin a Gogol’ fino al più recente Varlan Salamov. Ironia che faceva paura, tanto che i pochi lettori del work in progress bulgakoviano spesso vedevano il fantasma di Stalin anche là dove non c’era, come nella figura di Woland che nel romanzo capolavoro di Bulgakov rappresenta davvero Satana e non il dittatore, in un’opera in cui il Faust di Goethe, rivisitato in ambito sovietico, si mescola alle vicende storiche di Ponzio Pilato e Yeoshua.

“Lo conferma anche Elena Sergeevna, che annota: «Finito di leggere Miša (nomignolo attribuito all’autore – NdA) chiese:”Chi è Woland?” Vilenkin disse di averlo intuito, “Ma non speri che lo annunci a gran voce!”». Anche Vilenkin cita la domanda nelle sue memorie, e aggiunge: «Nessuno si decise a rispondergli: era un rischio». Ognuno, dunque, scrive la risposta su un pezzo di carta, che poi passa agli altri.«Michail Afanas’evič, curioso, venne alle mie spalle, e quando mi vide scrivere “Satana” mi carezzò la testa»” (pag.455).

D’altra parte la vena fantastica che attraversava le sue opere più importanti (oltre al solito “Il Maestro e Margherita” anche “Diavoleide” oppure “Le uova fatali” o, ancora “Cuore di cane“), pur affondando le proprie radici nella tradizione letteraria russa, non poteva essere apprezzata in un tempo in cui il severo realismo promosso da Zdanov richiedeva esclusivamente opere che cantassero il valore dell’industrializzazione forzata, dello stakanovismo e della lotta ai kulaki. Senza contare che Bulgakov, nella sua carriera di medico, avendo potuto osservare quanto poco eroico ed affidabile fosse quel popolo russo che la letteratura ufficiale chiedeva di esaltare ad ogni piè sospinto, non poteva prestarsi ad essere un ingegnere dell’animo umano così come lo stesso Stalin chiedeva agli scrittori di diventare¹. Finendo con l’essere molto più vicino alle opere ottocentesche, ironiche e crudeli insieme, di Saltykov-Ščedrin che al realismo socialista, insopportabilmente retorico, di un Fadeev.

Ma le capacità letterarie di Bulgakov, che sovrastavano indiscusse quelle di tanti pseudo sperimentatori ed autori della letteratura proletaria, spingevano i critici burocrati della letteratura di partito a chiedergli di rivolgere la sua satira contro i nemici del popolo e del socialismo in un solo paese. Cui, l’autore, non poteva far altro che rispondere:”Qualunque tentativo di creare la satira è condannata a fallire miseramente. La satira non si crea da fuori. La satira nasce da sola quando meno te lo aspetti. E nasce quando uno scrittore che ritiene imperfetto il suo presente si indigna e decide di smascherarlo con la letteratura. Perciò ritengo che avrà vita grama, in terra sovietica, anzi gramissima”. (pag. 361)

Relegato al ruolo di adattatore di opere letterarie per il teatro, poi a librettista, talvolta ad attore, Bulgakov sopravvisse attraverso gli anni del terrore vedendo rappresentati ottocento volte i suoi “Giorni dei Turbin” senza mai essere citato dai giornali sovietici come autore di quello straordinario successo di pubblico; vide ancora rappresentata la sua “Vita del Signor di Molière”, diversamente detta “Cabala dei Bigotti”, con l’appoggio di Stanislavskij, ma non vide mai la pubblicazione dei suoi romanzi preferiti e del suo capolavoro² .

Condannato ad un’autentica morte civile, non troppo diversa dalla morte vera e, talvolta, più dolorosa poiché prolungata nel tempo in una sorta di ultra-decennale agonia, Bulgakov lavorò fino quasi all’ultimo giorno sulle pagine del suo ultimo ed insuperato romanzo. Morì, come il padre, di nefrosclerosi ipertensiva, tra atroci sofferenze, il 10 marzo 1940. Per tutto questo vale, dunque, la pena di ricordarlo ancora oggi, a settantaquattro anni dalla morte, con rispetto estremo, attraverso le pagine di questo testo bellissimo, anche se non sempre di facile lettura.

“E’ tutto finito dunque?”
“Proprio così, caro il mio discepolo”
(Michail Bulgakov, “Il Maestro e Margherita”)

---

1. “Stalin approvò e proclamò obbligatoria per tutta l’arte sovietica la parola d’ordine del realismo socialista. La cosa riguardava innanzitutto la letteratura: il metodo del realismo socialista fu infatti definitivamente formulato e approvato per la prima volta nel corso del primo congresso dell’Unione degli scrittori nel 1934 e solo in seguito trasferito senza alcuna modifica nelle altre arti [...] L’estetica e la prassi dell’epoca staliniana tendono fondamentalmente all’educazione e alla formazione delle masse, una concezione formulata da Stalin utilizzando in un diverso contesto una metafora dell’avanguardia: gli scrittori sono gli ingegneri dell’animo umano“, Boris Groys, Lo stalinismo ovvero l’opera d’arte totale, Garzanti 1992, pp. 48 – 49  ↩

2. Pubblicato per la prima volta, in edizione integrale, in Italia da Einaudi nel 1967