BBK 83.3R6 UDC 882 I-21
Ivanova Evgenia Sergeevna, graduate student of the Russian Literature department of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Tambov State Technical University", e-mail: _ prickle912@,mail. ru
TRADITIONS N.V. GOGOL IN THE WORK OF M.A. BULGAKOVA:
A DREAM ABOUT TWO RATS
(reviewed)
The article is devoted to the consideration of the problem of the dream tradition of N.V. Gogol in relation to the works of M.A. Bulgakov. The author investigates the reason, determines artistic purpose and the meaning of the repetition of Gogol’s dream about two rats in Bulgakov’s story. For the first time, a comparative analysis of the dreams of the mayor from the comedy “The Inspector General” and the station chief from the story “Two-Faced Chems” has been carried out. The main dream images-symbols that characterize the characters are emphasized.
Key words: dream, allusion, background knowledge, hypocrisy, symbol of deception.
Ivanova Evgenia Sergeyevna, post graduate student of the Russian Literature Department of FSBEIHPE “Tambov state technical university”, e-mail: [email protected]
TRADITIONS OF N. V. GOGOL IN M. A. BULGAKOV'S WORKS:
DREAM ABOUT TWO RATS
The article considers the problem of dreaming traditions of N. V. Gogol in relation to M. A. Bulgakov's works.
The author investigates the reason, defines the art purpose and sense of repetition of Gogol’s dream about two rats in Bulgakov’s story.
The analysis comparative of the dreams of the governor from the comedy “Auditor” and the station-master from the story “Two-faced Chems” has been made for the first time.
The main dreaming images-symbols acting as the characteristic features of characters have been emphasized.
Keywords: dream, hint, background knowledge, hypocrisy, deception symbol.
N.V. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov - writers whose works include high degree The artistic technique of dreaming was used. Usage this technique in the works has become key in their creativity, therefore, the study of the functionality of the artistic device of sleep allows us to judge the individual author’s view.
To date, many works have been created devoted to the study of creative parallels between N.V. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov. Identification of continuity based on repeating techniques and motives seems to be the most fruitful direction in modern research. However, the problem of focusing Bulgakov’s texts on N.V. has not yet been resolved. Gogol: no
It has been revealed why and for what purpose the repetition of certain artistic elements is used, and how a work of art is “transformed” in this case. Of course, there is no definite and clear answer, because the creative connections of writers are numerous and multifaceted, and an individual researcher touches only on a certain aspect of this issue.
Our focus is on the use of M.A. Bulgakov in the story “Two-Faced Chems” allusions to a dream from the comedy N.V. Gogol "The Inspector General". A comparative study of Gogol’s comedy “The Inspector General” and Bulgakov’s feuilleton “Two-Faced Chems” is new in literary criticism: we have not found any published scientific works devoted to solving this problem.
The main objective of the study is to obtain an answer to the question: for what purpose does M.A. Bulgakov in his story uses the already “familiar” from the work of N.V. Gogol's motive for the dream of two rats?
The formulated theoretical principles and practical conclusions we obtained in this article contribute to the expansion and deepening of the ideas about the cultural and creative dialogue of writers N.V. existing in modern science. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov, definition and clarification of the concept of “author's picture of the world”.
The practical significance lies in the possibility of further use of the conclusions obtained during the study in the process of scientific study of N.V.’s creativity. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov, when clarifying them artistic heritage. These materials can be used in the preparation of educational courses on Russian literature both for students and schoolchildren.
The mayor is a character in N.V.’s comedy. Gogol’s “The Inspector General” (1835) - reporting the arrival of an inspector in the city, he says that he “dreamed about two extraordinary rats all night.”
In the “Encyclopedia of Literary Heroes”, researcher A.N. Shchuplov. calls the mayor’s dream “incomprehensible and therefore terrible.” We agree with this characteristic, because, according to the dictionary of symbols, the rat is a symbol of destruction and decay. The mayor sees them as “black, of unnatural size.” The huge size of the animal symbolizes the significance and importance of the auditor’s person, and the black color is a symbol of tragedy, evil that disrupts the measured and established life of a provincial town. “The mayor, like other city officials, is overcome by an irresistible fear of the auditor: this is nothing more than the fear of expecting retribution for the lawlessness committed.”
We find a similar situation in Bulgakov’s story “Two-Faced Chems.” Station life under the conditional leadership of Chems is destroyed by the arrival of a correspondent who learns that the Chems “issued an order that no employee should give correspondence to newspapers without looking at it.”
The ChMS is frightened, hides the order book under lock and key, tries to find out among “dear colleagues”, “casts a shadow on our expensive station", but the search is in vain:
A station full of people, almost every other day some kind of correspondence, and when you ask: “Who?” - there is no culprit. Well, is their holy spirit writing? [ibid].
Having learned that “a correspondent had arrived before him,” Chems says, turning pale: “That’s why I dreamed all night about two big rats... ". The story not only contains Gogol’s motifs, they are repeated and reproduced almost verbatim. Bulgakov appeals to the reader’s background knowledge, therefore the description of the dream plot
is not required, because the reader already knows him. Thus, the use of a “known” dream gives an additional characteristic of Chems, similar to that given by N.V. Gogol in “Notes for Gentlemen Actors” in relation to his hero: “Although he is a bribe-taker, he behaves very respectably; quite serious; somewhat even a reasoner... The transition from fear to joy, from baseness, from baseness to arrogance is quite rapid, like in a person with roughly developed inclinations of the soul.”
The direct description of the hero is in the title - “two-faced”. Chems turns out to be two-faced not only because he “changes his face” in a conversation with a correspondent (compare the conversation with his subordinates about the ban on writing to newspapers), ingratiates himself with him, but because hypocrisy is a constant quality of the hero:
Yes Lord! Yes, my God! Yes, I’ve been struggling for six months to establish it [correspondent communications], damned. But she’s not getting better. That's the kind of people they are. What a savage people they are, I’ll tell you a secret, it’s downright terrifying. Twenty thousand times I told them: “Write, you striped devils, write!” - They don’t write a damn thing, they just get drunk. What has it come to: despite the fact that I am overloaded with work, as you yourself understand, dear comrade, I myself suggested to them: “Write,” I say, “for the sake of all that is holy, I will correct your correspondence myself, I will help you myself, I will send it myself.” , just write so that you don’t have a bottom or a tire.”
Chems is deceitful, crafty, even his smile turns out to be false and two-spirited: “... affectionately grinned at the correspondent with one cheek, and at the employee with the other..”. Gogol “encodes” a similar characteristic in the hero’s surname - Skvoznik-Dmukhanovsky. According to V. Dahl’s dictionary, “to sneak through” means “to sneak around”, “to sneak around”, which means that a draftsman is a cunning person, a shrewd one, a swindler. In other words, the heroes, who are always rude and cruel in dealing with their subordinates, change radically when communicating with their superiors: their courtesy, ostentatious cordiality and attentiveness are limitless.
The similarity of the characters of Gorodnichy and Chems is emphasized using the artistic device of sleep. Both characters appear ignorant, comparing the auditor/correspondent to a rat. It would seem solid social status heroes should be regulated by their behavior, but there is no talk of decency in their attitude towards people and work: the mayor takes bribes, flogs people; Chems - oppresses workers, deprives them of freedom of speech.
The plot of the mayor’s dream contains a hint that the inspector’s inspection will not lead to results: the rats “came, sniffed, and went away.” This is absurd, because he “dreamed about them all night.” It is even more absurd that these “rats” only “sniffed” and nothing more, because the heroes regard the arrival of the inspector with a “secret order” as an event that has political reasons (compare, Ammos Fedorovich: “I think ... here it is subtle and more political reason."
The mayor notes that his dream was prophetic, he “seemed to have a presentiment,” the same in the situation with Chems, who correlates the correspondent’s arrival with a dream about rats. None of the characters takes into account the actions of the rats: they came, sniffed, left - the mayor and the ChMS expect more serious events. This fact is confirmed further actions Gogol's and Bulgakov's heroes: they “hide” from their eyes everything that could compromise them.
An obvious reference to Gogol’s text creates a certain effect in a work of art in terms of content: a birth takes place
reader's association with the world of deceivers and bribe-takers, described by Gogol in his comedy. In addition, a parallel is created between the past and the present, the Gogol and modern Bulgakov eras: has society changed much? It turns out that such phenomena as hypocrisy and fraud have not gone away from our lives, they live with a person and in a person.
The repetition of the dream plot about two rats acquires a symbolic designation, which provides depth literary text and expanding the boundaries of interpretation of the text by the reader: the idea is affirmed that it is impossible to correct the Russian character, about the futility of any revisions. Using the artistic device of dreams, Bulgakov not only characterizes Chems, drawing a parallel of characters with Gogol’s mayor, but also reveals the characteristic (unchangeable) features of Russian bureaucratic society. Also, an allusion to Gogol’s dream gives the author the opportunity to convey maximum meaning in a concise form, within one sentence, to express his attitude towards the characters, to enter into a dialogue with the reader, forcing him to again pay attention to the problems that existed in society previously and still exist. .
We see further development of our research in expanding the range of works for comparative benchmarking Russian writers N.V. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov. We are interested in the specific functionality of sleep reception in separate work, as well as in their system, which will help identify trends, features of the disclosure of the plot, the characters of the characters, their words, actions, will help to define and clarify such a concept as the author’s picture of the world.
Literature:
1. Encyclopedia of literary heroes [Electronic resource]. M.: Agraf, 1997. URL: http://www.a4format.ru/pdf files bio2/471221fa.pdf (access date: 02.9.15)
2. Hall J. Dictionary of plots and symbols in art / trans. from English A.E. Maikapara. M.: KRON-PRESS, 1996. 659 p.
3. Cooper J. Encyclopedia of symbols. Book IV. M.: Golden Age, 1995. 401 p.
4. Gogol N.V. Collected works. In 7 vols. T. 4. Dramatic works The Inspector General, Marriage, etc. M.: Khud. lit., 1977. 446 p.
5. Matyushenko L.I., Matyushenko A.G. Tutorial on Russian history
literature of the 19th century [Electronic resource]. M.: MAKS Press, 2009. URL:
http://www.a4format.ru/pdf files bio2/4dc1188f.pdf (access date: 02/9/15)
6. Bulgakov M.A. Collected works. In 5 volumes. T. 2. Diaboliad; Fatal Eggs; Dog's heart; Stories; Feuilletons. M.: Khud. lit., 1989. 751 p.
7. Dal V. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. T. 1-4. M.: Rus. language,
1. Encyclopedia of literary heroes. M.: Agraffe, 1997. URL: http://www.a4format.ru/pdf_files_bio2/471221fa.pdf (date of access: 02.9.15)
2. Hall J. The dictionary of plots and symbols in art / Tr. from English by A.E. Maykapar. M.: KRON - PRESS, 1996. 659 p.
3. Cooper J. Encyclopedia of symbols. Book IV. M.: Golden Age, 1995. 401 p.
4. Gogol N. V. Coll. of works in 7 v. V.4. The drama works Auditor, Marriage, etc. M.: Fiction, 1977. 446p.
5. Matyushenko L.I., Matyushenko A.G. The manual on the history of the Russian
literature of the XIX century. M.: MAX Press, 2009. URL:
http://www.a4format.ru/pdf_files_bio2/4dc1188f.pdf (date of the access: 02/9/15)
6. Bulgakov M. A. Coll. of works in 5 v. V.2. Diavoliada; Fatal eggs; Dog's Heart; Stories; Feuilletons. M.: Fiction, 1989. 751 p.
7. Dal V. Explanatory dictionary of living great Russian language. V. 1-4. M.: Russian language, 1989.
To view the presentation with pictures, design and slides, download its file and open it in PowerPoint on your computer.
Text content of presentation slides: TRADITIONS OF N.V. GOGOL IN THE WORK OF M.A. BULGAKOV Full name Saidova Liliana, 9th grade student Teacher: Drozdova Vera Aleksandrovna MBOU "Secondary School No. 3 MO "Akhtubinsky District" PROJECT ON LITERATURE METHODOLOGICAL PASSPORT OF THE PROJECT CONTRADICTION: the opposition and interdependence of tradition and innovation in literature nom process RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH: this topic reflects an important moment in the development of Russian literature, namely: the development of the grotesque and method critical realism, largely due to the creative continuity of writers PROBLEM: How does the impact manifest itself? creative experience and the creativity of N.V. Gogol on the formation of M.A. Bulgakov as a writer and on his further creativity Purpose of the study: To trace how in the works of M.A. Bulgakov realizes the creative continuity of writers through the example of a comparative analysis of the works of writers. Identify the traditional and innovative in the work of M.A. Bulgakov. Hypothesis If we study materials characterizing the leading trends in the development of Russian literature, conduct a comparative study of the texts of works of art, identify common and different features of the creative manner of N.V. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov, then we can determine the role of the Gogol tradition in the work of M.A. Bulgakov. The objectives are to study the texts of works of art to identify common and different features of N.V.’s creative style. Gogol and M.A. Bulgakov draw conclusions about the role of the Gogol tradition in the work of M.A. Bulgakov and the role of tradition and innovation in the literary process. Bibliography Anthology of satire and humor from Russia in the 20th century. Michael Bulgakov. Volume 10. – M.: Publishing house EKSMO-Press, 2000. – 736 pp. Belozerskaya-Bulgakova L.E. Memories. - M.: Artist. Lit., 1990. - 224 pp. Memories of Mikhail Bulgakov / Comp. E.S. Bulgakova, S.A. Lyandres. - M.: Sov. writer, 1988. - 525 pp. Gorelov A.A. Oral-narrative beginning in the prose of Mikhail Bulgakov // Works of Mikhail Bulgakov. Book 3. – St. Petersburg: “Science”, 1995. – P. 50-62. Egorov B.F. M.A. Bulgakov - translator of Gogol. - L., 1978. - 270 p. Bibliography N.V. Gogol:Gogol N.V. Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka. - Alma-Ata: Zhazushi, 1984. - 480 pp. Gogol N.V. Stories. Dramatic works. - L.: Artist. Lit., 1983. - 328 pp. Gogol in the memoirs of his contemporaries. - M.: Goslitizdat, 1952. - 718s.N. V. Gogol in portraits, illustrations, documents / Comp. A.M. Gordin. - M-L.: Uchpedgiz, 1953. - 394 pp. M.A. Bulgakov: Bulgakov M.A. White Guard. – Minsk, 1988. – 270 p. Bulgakov M.A. Notes on cuffs. - M.: Eksmo-press, 2000. - 38 p. Bulgakov M.A. Favorites. - M.: Artist. Lit., 1988. - 480 pp. Bulgakov M.A. Master and Margarita. - M.: Artist. Lit., 1990. - 380 pp. Bulgakov M.A. The adventures of Chichikov. – M.: Eksmo-press, 2000. Bulgakova E. Diary of Elena Bulgakova. - M.: Publishing house "Kn. Palata", 1990. - 400 p. RESEARCH PLAN THEORETICAL PART 1. Gogol in the context of literature of the second half of the 30s - 40s. XIX century 1.1. “Natural school” in the literature of the 40s: Gogol is the founder of the “natural school” 1.2. M.A. Bulgakov about N.V. Gogol PRACTICAL PART 2. The influence of N.V. Gogol’s work on the work of M.A. Bulgakov as a problem of literary traditions2.1 Gogol as a model for creative imitation M. A. Bulgakova2.2 Gogol’s “roots” in the works of M.A. Bulgakov MAIN THESIS OF THE RESEARCH 1. Gogol in the context of literature of the second half of the 30s - 40s. XIX century 1.1. “Natural school” in the literature of the 40s: Gogol is the founder of the “natural school” In the works of N.V. Gogol for the first time in Russian literature began to depict images of the most ordinary people, and as similar as possible “to models in reality.” This is precisely the merit of the writer, since he turned “art to reality.” Gogol's influence on literature was so significant that many writers followed Gogol's example in their work. This is how the “natural school” arose. Meanwhile, N.V. Gogol was not only the successor of the realistic foundations in Russian literature laid by A.S. Pushkin, but also became the head of the realistic direction, playing decisive role in its formation and development. So V.N. Maikov called the collected works of Gogol the artistic statistics of Russia. 1. Gogol in the context of literature of the second half of the 30s - 40s. XIX century 1.2. M.A. Bulgakov about N.V. Gogol In his letters, Bulgakov calls Gogol “a well-known person” and a “great teacher.” For Bulgakov, Gogol is “a fact of personal biography.” Bulgakov felt in him his ally in the fight against vulgarity, petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness, with bureaucratic routine resurrected from the ashes of the old world. “Of writers, I prefer Gogol, from my point of view, no one can compare with him...” This is how M.A. answered. Bulgakov to a question from his friend and future biographer Pavel Sergeevich Popov. M.A. Bulgakov carried these feelings throughout his life, through all his works. 2. The influence of N.V. Gogol’s work on the work of M.A. Bulgakov as a problem of literary traditions 2.1 Gogol as a model for creative imitation of M.A. Bulgakov It was N.V. Gogol who was for M.A. Bulgakov that “ideal model” of a professional , which is necessary for any creatively gifted person to follow at the initial stage of the formation of his own creative potential. All of Bulgakov’s prose makes one recall the Gogol formula: “man is such a wondrous creature that he can never suddenly calculate all his merits, and the more you look, the more new features, and their description would be endless.” 2. The influence of N.V. Gogol’s work on the work of M.A. Bulgakov as a problem of literary traditions 2.2 Gogol’s “roots” in the work of M.A. Bulgakov Romantic and realistic grotesque Double interpretation of reality (comic and highly lyrical) Rare gift of concreteness, “visibility” images, the interweaving of the real and the fantastic (which incorporates elements of phantasmagoria and mysticism) Special humor (“laughter through tears”), comedic dialogues The ability to see the mysterious in the ordinary and banal The use of “material symbols” Phrases with unexpected and semantically inconsistent comparisons, logically incompatible “ The White Guard" by M. Bulgakov and "Taras Bulba" by N. Gogol GENERAL DIFFERENT content of an entire era in the life of the people, the clash of social structures standing at different stages of socio-political, cultural and moral development; the vision of the mysterious in the most ordinary and banal object or creature (for example, the telephone, mysteriously interfering in the destinies of people, the thrush Yavdokha - sometimes a “sign”, sometimes “the witch on the mountain”); phrases with unexpected and semantically inconsistent comparisons, striking in logical incompatibility: “an engineer and a coward, a bourgeois and unsympathetic”, “so that no matter what, the Germans are a serious thing. They look like dung beetles." The difference lies in the perception of history by both writers: for Gogol, the events he describes are “distant antiquity,” which is close to the heart of a person who loves his homeland, but not enough to feel it keenly; for Bulgakov, this is not just history - this is the life of himself, his loved ones and relatives, a story that he himself experienced and felt. “The Master and Margarita” by M. Bulgakov as a continuation of the novel “Dead Souls” by N. Gogol “The Master and Margarita” can claim to be considered a continuation. “Dead Souls.” The work “The Master and Margarita”, similar to “Dead Souls”, is a gallery of Russian freaks. The baseness of life that Bulgakov paints is shown with a completely similar grotesquery, as in Gogol’s “Dead Souls”. devilry in “The Master and Margarita” is completely similar to the one that Gogol paints. For example, the flights of witches on pigs, brooms, etc. in Gogol’s works can be found in such characteristic works as “Viy”, etc. the same satire, the same surrealistic manner of depicting reality, the same impossibility of finding a positive hero outside psychiatric clinic. It is interesting that Woland is an analogue of the “real” Inspector General from St. Petersburg, as well as Chichikov, who is only busy collecting Dead Souls throughout the area. That is, it is Woland in The Master and Margarita who is positive hero, which Gogol could not find in the burned manuscript of the second part of “Dead Souls,” that is, the Inspector of Dead Souls. CONCLUSIONS Gogolian traditions in the work of M. Bulgakov are a fact of “end-to-end creative continuity” in the literary process; N. Gogol “prepared the platform” for M. Bulgakov, created those types of heroes who, on a different psychological basis, received their development in the work of the “student”; N. Gogol was the first to look into the face of the “spiritual blackness” of a person, was horrified by it and began to fight the “devil” in the human heart; M. Bulgakov follows Gogol in this, but goes much further in this struggle than his “teacher”; N. Gogol bequeaths to M. Bulgakov “ damn questions“Russian life, “fears and horrors of Russia”; the mirror image of the writers’ artistic and stylistic manner occurs due to the fact that N.V. Gogol was deliberately chosen by M.A. Bulgakov as a model for creative imitation; borrowings were discovered at the level of plots, images, character systems, language, traits and features of pathos and poetics close to both writers were identified; Thus, M.A. Bulgakov is truly a continuator of the traditions of N.V. Gogol in literary works. But it cannot be argued that the intertextuality of M.A. Bulgakov’s works is limited only to Gogol’s work.
What do the muses of chimeric prose look like?
Giorgio De Chirico. Restless muses. 1918. Private collection. Milan
Nikolai Vasilyevich Gogol is a multifaceted figure. He called himself a science fiction writer, although now no self-respecting serious writer would call himself that. Why did this happen? Are Gogol's traditions still alive? And if alive, then in whom? How is Ukrainian science fiction and literature in general different from Russian? We talked about all this on the eve of Gogol’s 200th anniversary with popular writers from Kharkov.
– As far as I understand, a new stage has matured in your publishing life?
Oleg Ladyzhensky: No... Not really. It’s just that we are opening another series of books, but on their covers, instead of a pseudonym, our real names will appear.
– Are you abandoning the pseudonym already familiar to everyone – Henry Lyon Oldie?
O.L.: Not really. We were Oldies, and it seems we will remain so forever┘
Dmitry Gromov: Moreover, a new series is starting to come out in parallel, in which we will perform as Oldie.
O.L.: The new series opens with our old novels Stepchildren of the Eighth Commandment and Messiah Clears the Disc. These works were the first to be published in Moscow. During this time they were reprinted several times. All our old readers already have these novels. The new series is opening in order to expand the readership. For example, there are people who do not buy books with bright covers, so a more strict, intelligent style of serial design was developed. There are many people who do not take books by foreign authors - they simply mechanically pass by. Many people, on principle, do not read books classified as science fiction, because they know that this is bad literature. We would like to address all these people - maybe they will find our books interesting!
– In the early 90s, you took a foreign pseudonym for yourself, because then you didn’t buy books with Russian names... And now it’s the other way around?
O.L.: Yes and no... It’s just that our first publication ended up in the same collection with Clifford Simak, Robert Howard and Henry Kuttner - somehow the idea of a foreign language pseudonym arose. And then it stuck.
D.G.: In addition, I wanted to somehow shorten our names: Dmitry Gromov and Oleg Ladyzhensky will not be remembered either the first or the second time... At first we were just “G.L. Oldie”.
– That is, Gromov, Ladyzhensky, Oleg, Dima... Don’t you think that this whole idea with a new series is the practical embodiment of a deep crisis occurring in Russian science fiction, when this entire direction turns out to be compromised in the eyes of intelligent readers?
O.L.: It seems...
– The very word “fantasy” is becoming somehow “indecent”, not accepted in society...
O.L.: It doesn’t become, but it has already become. From 1995 to 2001, we science fiction writers did everything in our power to ensure that science fiction was recognized as literature, and by the end of this period not only coursework, but also dissertations began to be written on it. And from 2001 to 2007, on the contrary, they did everything possible to go in the opposite direction. Now science fiction has turned from literature into the entertainment industry, and it is no longer oriented towards the reader, but towards the consumer. These are different categories! The reader is able to make efforts to penetrate the text, the consumer simply does not need this, he wants to relax!
– Isn’t it paradoxical, in your opinion, the very situation in which the author must first establish himself in this very industry, in order to then express himself in literature, be published in respectable covers and under his own names? The works of many authors are simply adjusted to fit the series, everything original, bright, and bold is eliminated...
D.G.: This is, of course, a problem, but it can be solved. We have always fought with editing and alterations of texts, and now our books are published in the original edition.
O.L.: Indeed, among young science fiction writers there is an opinion that it is necessary to first write six or seven entertaining action films, and then you can sit down to a serious book. However, I don’t know of a single example of someone writing a masterpiece in this situation.
– So what should a young science fiction writer do who does not want to participate in the “entertainment industry”, but wants to write literature?
O.L.: Give in! We, too, were not published for six years.
O.L.: There is already a lot of entertaining reading material, they take it from the Internet, from samizdat... But if such a young author makes his way - this is not necessary, but he has a chance - then he will no longer depend on market fluctuations, because he will have his own reader. Maybe it won’t have huge circulation numbers, but it will have a good reputation.
– What is happening with literature in Ukraine now? So you write in Russian - are you popular in your homeland?
D.G.: We are both bilingual. Sometimes you watch a movie and don’t remember what language it was in.
O.L.: And we, if necessary, translate our works into Ukrainian. We are listed in our homeland. If you don’t take into account the handful of nationalist fringes that are abundant in any country, then in general the attitude towards authors writing in Russian is normal – both in society, and in the branches of government, and on the book market. In addition, we publish in Ukrainian.
– But this is because you have been publishing in Russia for more than ten years...
O.L.: This is because we are famous authors┘
D.G.: If we were published in the States, we would also be translated...
O.L.: In addition, we hold the Star Bridge science fiction festival and participate in the work of a number of commissions. People turn to us with pleasure, for example, to join the jury of an all-Ukrainian short story competition┘
D.G.: And not fantastic stories, but stories in general!
– But it just seemed to me that in Ukraine there is not such a strict line between science fiction and the mainstream as in Russia... There are a lot of authors who quite comfortably balance between these directions... Take Andrei Kurkov for example...
O.L.: Add Yuri Andrukhovich┘ Yes, many┘ Probably yes┘
D.G.: To be precise, such a boundary probably still exists, but it is more blurred. If you don’t take the groups of completely mossy orthodoxies from Spilka pysmennykiv┘
O.L.:┘Writers' Union┘
D.G.:┘of which, firstly, there are not so many, and secondly, there are fewer and fewer of them due to their age, the attitude towards this division into directions is very calm. The fact is that in Ukraine there is such a thing as “chimeric prose.” It was not invented now...
O.L.: This is an old one literary tradition. The most striking example is Gogol. But it was developed before him. For example, Mikhail Kotsyubinsky┘
D.G.: Chimeric prose is something on the verge between fantasy, phantasmagoria, realism, and parable. She included many directions. But this is something completely separate. This direction is close to Baroque, but not quite...
– But in Russia there were also Osip Senkovsky and Vladimir Odoevsky...
D.G.: So in Ukraine this Gogol and pre-Gogol tradition has been preserved to this day...
O.L.: And now it exists, but without the derogatory title “fantasy.” Authors working in this direction are treated with respect┘
D.G.: For example, there is a writer Yuri Vinnichuk. Here is a pure representative of chimeric prose, a follower of Gogol and Kotsyubinsky. Both science fiction writers and mainstream fans consider him theirs!
D.G.: And here is a completely different story: he is invited to science fiction conventions and awarded prizes for the best work in the Ukrainian language, he is also welcomed at general literary events. It doesn’t even occur to anyone to say: “He went into science fiction!” or “He sold out to the mainstream!”
– Why did this split occur in Russia? Maybe Vissarion Belinsky is to blame for calling Gogol the author of natural essays without recognizing him as a science fiction writer?
D.G.: Unlike Belinsky, Gogol himself considered his works to be fantasy. In his article he scolded Baron Brambeus for writing science fiction “very badly”, but he should write it well, like himself, Gogol...
O.L.: We once studied this phenomenon, and on a global scale. When science fiction began to emerge from romanticism, critics praised it. Walter Scott called Hoffman the main science fiction writer. Critics contemporary with Balzac called him “ Shagreen skin"fantasy. Dostoevsky called " Queen of Spades"Pushkin's "best work of science fiction", and an example of science fiction! A truly contemptuous attitude towards science fiction began already under Soviet rule - after the First Congress of the Writers' Union. There it was decided that science fiction is “literature for children and youth, designed to promote the achievements of scientific and technological progress and encourage young people to join colleges.” All! After this, what kind of self-respecting writer will write science fiction! But Gogol was written out of science fiction. And the whole direction was labeled as under-literature...
D.G.: But why this did not happen in Ukraine is a question... Perhaps because our country is smaller and there is nothing to divide in it. Because we have, consider, one linguistic space; literature, too, consider it one...
O.L.: Dividing into science fiction writers and non-science fiction writers is as stupid as tearing Gogol and Bulgakov apart - arguing whose writers these are: Russian or Ukrainian...
D.G.: There is literature and non-literature. It doesn’t matter what country you live in, what language you write in and what formal movement you belong to. The total body of literature in Ukraine is much smaller than in Russia, so where else should it be divided?
– So, Gogol’s traditions in Ukrainian literature are still strong?
D.G.: Yes, Gogol’s traditions live on and in some places even win!
O.L.: And this can even be seen in the example of our fellow science fiction writers. Whichever Ukrainian you take: Marina and Sergey Dyachenko, Andrey Valentinov, Andrey Dashkov, Vladimir Sverzhin - in the work of each of them there is an element of this chimeric prose.
O.L.: With all these authors you will never understand whether it is historical novel, either it's science fiction or it's a thriller. Each work, like a dragon, has three heads... What is this if not the legacy of Gogol and this very chimerical prose?
1) M. Bulgakov - student of Pushkin and Gogol.
When reading the novel "The Master and Margarita", one is struck by its striking similarity with the traditions of such great writers as Pushkin and Gogol. This parallel can be traced in many aspects of Bulgakov's work. An example would be burning part of one's creations. The only difference is that Pushkin was forced to burn his diary and the tenth chapter of Onegin, due to possible accusations of unreliability and the desire to hide the names of his Decembrist friends from a hostile gaze. Bulgakov and Gogol burned their manuscripts because of dissatisfaction with themselves, because of the discrepancy between the plan and the implementation. However, Bulgakov, in the end, follows Pushkin and restores, redoing, the text of the novel about the devil. Repetition Latin proverb“Manuscripts don’t burn” was the result of the author of the novel. A repetition of Gogol's behavior was impossible not only because historical circumstances had changed, but also because Bulgakov was in many ways not like Gogol. The satire that Bulgakov valued was not as pathetic and solemn as Gogol’s. Pushkin's grace of irony captivates Bulgakov more than Gogol's caustic sarcasm. A striking example“Graceful irony” can be found in “The Master and Margarita” and “The Heart of a Dog,” where the author, with his characteristic irony, describes the people around him.
In Pushkin, Bulgakov felt an artist and a person close to himself in his worldview and passions in art. The writer connected his fight with Soviet society with the name of Pushkin. Bulgakov is closer to Pushkin’s position of accepting life, rather than Gogol’s repulsion from it.
But one cannot assume that Mikhail Afanasyevich was closer to Pushkin than to Gogol. “My teacher is Gogol,” Bulgakov declared more than once. In a letter to V. Veresaev dated August 2, 1933, Bulgakov says: “...sat for two nights over your Gogol. God! What a figure! What a personality!” The commitment to Gogol was so great that at the moment of mental crisis, when Bulgakov, hounded by bans on printing and performing his works on stage, wrote a letter to Stalin in 1931, asking for permission to travel abroad, the writer tried to repeat the model of behavior of his famous predecessor: “... knew only that “that I was not going at all to enjoy foreign lands, but rather to endure it, as if I had a presentiment that I would only learn the value of Russia outside Russia and gain love for it far from it.” These words sound like a sincere attempt to repeat Gogol’s path.
Bulgakov depicts the world of Moscow as immobility, incapacity for tragic oncoming movements. This static nature of the Moscow circle pushed Bulgakov towards Gogol’s style. Creating a film script based on " Dead souls", Bulgakov constantly dynamizes and expands the scope of Gogol's narrative, understanding that cinema is a world of events. The consciousness of Muscovites is focused only on familiar circumstances and comically tries to attach the “fantastic” to the “real.” Likhodeev’s transfer to Yalta amazes his colleagues: “Yes, it’s funny to say! - Rimsky shouted shrilly. - He talked or didn’t talk, but he can’t be in Yalta now! That's funny!
He’s drunk... - said Varenukha.
Who's drunk? - asked Rimsky, and again both stared at each other.
The Gogol style in this dialogue is obvious, and it is necessary, since Bulgakov describes a motionless world that absorbs nothing except known circumstances: “During the twenty-five years of his activity in the theater, Varenukha saw all sorts of scenes, but then he felt that his mind was being clouded, as it were. a veil, and he was unable to utter anything except the everyday and completely absurd phrase: “This cannot be!” How reminiscent this is of Korobochka’s reaction to Chichikov’s proposals! The Gogolian style is inevitably present in the Moscow chapters of The Master and Margarita, since the system of repetitions of some situations in the biblical chapters creates a diminishing effect. (for example, in the 18th chapter, the pumping up of mystery with sounds without explaining their source, as in the scene with Levi.) The suffering of Styopa Likhodeev in the 7th chapter “Bad Apartment” is somewhat reminiscent of the headache of Pontius Pilate, but in their description it is not spirituality that appears, and animality.
The vanity and self-interest of a society of beggars in the 9th chapter of “Koroviev’s Jokes” are described completely in Gogolian tones. The petty alogism of Berlioz’s “claims to the living space of the deceased” is reminiscent of scenes from “The Government Inspector” and “Dead Souls”:
“And within two hours, Nikanor Ivanovich accepted thirty-two such statements. They contained pleas, threats, slander, denunciations, promises to carry out repairs at his own expense, indications of unbearable overcrowding and the impossibility of living in the same apartment with the bandits. Among other things was amazing in its own way artistic power a description of the theft of dumplings, placed directly in his jacket pocket, in apartment 31, two promises to commit suicide and one confession of a secret pregnancy." The high-flown compliment characteristic of Gogol's style of obviously insignificant things helps Bulgakov to ridicule the world of ordinary people. Reminiscences of Gogol's style in the Moscow chapters appear constantly In the 17th chapter, “Restless Day,” accountant Vasily Stepanovich Lastochkin is forced to deal with the consequences of the “damned session” and, under the pressure of a queue of thousands, is no less confused than Manilov was before Chichikov.
In the Moscow chapters, the action takes on an incoherent, feverish, noisy pace of buffoonery, as happens in “The Inspector General” and the city chapters of “Dead Souls.” Where there is no inner life of a person, the boiling of vanity becomes chaotic. The grasping instinct of the philistinism, the materialism of the Moscow public, in the literal sense of the word, were exposed by M. Bulgakov with the help of Gogol’s technique of reducing hyperbole. The entire scene in the Variety Show is a reduced variation of Mephistopheles’ aria from Charles Gounod’s opera “Faust” (“Satan rules the show there, people die for metal…”). And just as Gogol in “Dead Souls” slightly distorts Pushkin’s style (variations on the themes of “Gypsies” and Tatyana’s letter in a stranger’s note addressed to Chichikov), so Bulgakov, instead of Gounod’s poetic bacchanalia, gives a disgusting fever of vulgarity.
The eccentricity of Bulgakov's satire prompts us to remember that the Gogol tradition came to him through Saltykov-Shchedrin and Chekhov. This is especially noticeable in chapter 17, where Moscow is fascinated by the scandal and strives for it, like any eventless life. After the tragic requiem of the 16th chapter, this fussy allegro is especially comical. The drama of what is happening in Moscow is not perceived as a disaster, just as we calmly laugh at Chekhov’s “Death of an Official.” Before us are not people, but wind-up dolls who can only perform the part assigned to them, but are not able to navigate events, to be aware of them. The eccentricity of empty frock coats is directly reminiscent of Gogol and Shchedrin: “Behind a huge desk with a massive inkwell sat an empty suit and, with a dry pen not dipped in ink, was moving across the paper. The suit had a tie, a pen was sticking out of the suit pocket, but there was no body above the collar , no head, nor any hands peeking out of the cuffs. The suit was immersed in work and was completely unaware of the chaos that reigned all around.”
The phantasmagoria of replacing a person with a thing is characteristic of Gogol ("The Nose", "The Overcoat"), and is used by Bulgakov to emphasize the illogicality of Moscow life. Puppetry and inhumanity are noticeable in such characters as Sempleyarov, Maigel, as well as in many others.
P.S. Popov, friend of Bulgakov, In a letter to E.S. Bulgakova on December 27, 1940 noted: “Modern aesthetics (Bergson and others) say that the main spring of laughter is that comic feeling that is caused by automatic movement instead of organic, living, human, hence Hoffmann’s penchant for automata. And here is the laughter of M. A above everything automatic and therefore absurd - in the center of many scenes of the novel... The ideology of the novel is sad, and you cannot hide it... And it thickened the darkness, in some places it not only veiled, but dotted all the i's. In this regard, it can be compared with ". Demons of Dostoevsky. Contemporaries saw in Bulgakov's novel primarily an evil parody of Soviet society and emphasized primarily the influence of Griboyedov, Gogol and Dostoevsky on Bulgakov. There are many faces in Bulgakov's novel, the specific prototypes of which are recognizable. Of course, with all the character of such persons as Berlioz or Bengalsky, a type emerges in each of them. However, the eternal types (Yeshua, Pilate, Woland), breaking the shackles of time, carry the influence of Pushkin. The Gogolian tradition is certainly present in The Master and Margarita and is reflected in the werewolf motif. Suffice it to recall Behemoth or the transformation of the “bottom tenant” Nikolai Ivanovich into a hog. Bulgakov is really close to Gogol in his assessment of paganism (in Pushkin it is presented in the aura of poetry). In the novel, communist Moscow is presented as a step back from Christianity, a return to the cult of things and demons, spirits and ghosts. Bulgakov, who wrote in the feuilleton “The Adventures of Chichikov” about the revival of Gogol’s heroes in the post-revolutionary environment, completely agrees with N.A. Berdyaev, who in the article “Spirits of the Russian Revolution” (1918) recalled “The Inspector General” and “Dead Souls”: “In most of the appropriations of the revolution there is something Nozdrevsky. The mask replaces the personality. Everywhere there are masks and doubles, grimaces and shreds of a person. Lying of existence is ruled by the revolution. Everything is ghostly, all parties are ghostly, all the heroes of the revolution are ghostly. Nowhere can one find a solid being, nowhere can one see a clear human face. This ghostliness, this neo-ontology was born from falsity. "
Chichikov still travels around Russian soil and sells dead souls. But he does not drive slowly in a carriage, rushes on courier trains and sends telegrams everywhere. The same element acts at a new pace. The revolutionary Chichikovs buy and resell non-existent wealth, they operate with fictions, not realities, they turn the entire economic life of Russia into fiction. But for all Bulgakov’s dislike for post-revolutionary Moscow, in his novel the extremes of vices (from gluttony to betrayal) acquire a fantastic flavor, in contrast to Gogol, who cared about their realistic portrayal, and from Dostoevsky, who considered them ineradicable. These vices are presented as a distortion of the human being, and not the basis of life. And therefore, not melancholy, not despair, but laughter crushing evil - the result of Bulgakov’s picture of Moscow in no way confirms Ha-Notsri’s statement that evil people not in the world. Characters from Moscow life are, as it were, outside of good and evil, there is no place in them for an ethical assessment of themselves and life, and therefore disgust and laughter are the reader’s reaction given by the author. But Bulgakov’s world of Moscow is not absolutely mechanistic and dead, as in “Dead Souls,” where the picture of the provincial city was confirmed by “The Tale of Captain Kopeikin.”
Collisions of incompatibility between the extraordinary and the everyday lead to the split personality of Ivan Bezdomny, his confusion and illness. Events and previous ideas about life are not consolidated in his mind; and therefore he is better off in the house of sorrow than in open life. Here you can hear your inner voice, here Ivan rises from the bustle to a sense of the essence of life, which is a sacrament. "...That the matter here is unclean is clear even to a child. He is an extraordinary and mysterious person one hundred percent. But this is the most interesting thing! The man was personally acquainted with Pontius Pilate, what do you need even more interesting? And instead of In order to raise the stupidest fuss against the Patriarchs, wouldn’t it be smarter to politely ask about what happened next with Pilate and this arrested Ga-Nozri? And God knows what I was doing!” The author's irony of the hero no longer hides the drama of what is happening and is reminiscent of Gogol's "Notes of a Madman" and Hermann's madness in "The Queen of Spades", to which Gogol in his story gave an interpretation reduced to farce, but not excluding tragedy.
Ivan Nikolaevich, unlike all other Muscovites, invariably returns to the source of change in his soul, and on the spring full moon he dreams of the execution of Yeshua, and Ha-Notsri with the forgiven Pilate, and the beautiful Margarita, and his teacher “fearfully looking around with a beard” , master. And the lunar flood makes this “silent and usually calm man” happy. Here one can already hear Pushkin’s belief that shocks are not without their traces, that a person reaches out to high light. Of course, the writer of the twentieth century is more skeptical than the bright genius of Russia, but Bulgakov continues Pushkin’s path of faith in man.
2) Woland’s stay in Moscow.
The division between Pushkin's and Gogol's style of writing also affected Woland and his retinue. The demonic power and significance of the “messer” are noble, the actions of his henchmen are disgusting and permeated with the voluptuousness of sadism that is inherent in the Muscovites themselves. The hippopotamus enthusiastically tears off the head of Georges of Bengal, and then puts it back in its original place, as happens with the head of Socrates in Apuleius' Metamorphoses. But in a vulgar world, ancient stories become comedy.
bulgakov pushkin gogol master
The satirical boils up around Woland. For three days (the action of the novel fits into just three days), Woland and his retinue appear in Moscow - and everyday life is cut into the fury of satire. And now, rapidly, as in the whirlwind of Dante’s Hell, lines of satirical characters rush by - writers from MASSOLIT, the administration of the Variety Theater, masters from the housing association, theater figure Arkady Appolonovich Sempleyarov, the genius of house squabbles Annushka, the boring “lower tenant” Nikolai Ivanovich and others.
The satirical diverges in circles around Woland. It turns into a phantasmagoria of a black magic session. He goes on a rampage in Nikanor Ivanovich’s “dream,” which was granted to Nikanor at parting by the restless Koroviev. In the intersecting layers of fantastic satire of this “dream”, not one iota real and at the same time real to the last grain, mockingly, ironically, deafeningly sarcastic, everything is the very embodiment of the metaphor of “seats for currency”; and the heartfelt speeches of the blue-eyed “artist” that the money the country needs should be kept in the State Bank, and “not at all in my aunt’s cellar, where, in particular, they can be spoiled by rats”; and figures of money-grubbers who never want to part with their goods; and the stunned Nikanor, on whom all this phantasmagoria has fallen and who has no currency (but really, really not?).
An essentially feuilletonous, but phantasmagorically resolved image of an institution singing in a choir appears, the head of which, a feigner in terms of social work, invited ... Koroviev as the leader of the choral circle. And the generalized image of a “suit” that occupied Bulgakov for a long time and, apparently, conceived by him following the example of the “organ man” Saltykov-Shchedrin, perfectly signs papers instead of the Chairman of the Entertainment Commission Prokhor Petrovich, who is usually in this suit.
What is drawn into the satirical circle is something that Woland does not touch or almost does not touch. Ironic fantasy illuminates the restaurant ruler Archibald Archibaldovich, who suddenly appears before everyone as an eternal filibuster from a pirate ship. The poet Ryukhin becomes numb with impotent envy of Pushkin, realizing his grave mediocrity.
Woland's retinue exaggerates the real vices of people and drives them to aggressive bitterness. Of course, Woland's assistants are smarter and more insightful than Muscovites. But the vulgarity of their motives makes them similar. This is a fantastic Gogolian evil spirit, sinister and caricatured at the same time. Gella, especially in the scene of the attack on the financial director Rimsky, resembles Gogol's drowned women. Pushkin's devils in "The Tale of the Priest and His Worker Balda" are closer to the folklore irony of demons and crafty losers from the gang of devils in the 21st canto of Dante's "Inferno." Woland, on the other hand, is more like the philosophical Mephistopheles of Pushkin’s “Scenes from Faust,” looking skeptically at all the actions and feelings of man. Maestro Woland in the 12th chapter “Black Magic and Its Exposure” begins a leisurely conversation on stage; this dialogue with Fagot-Koroviev does not captivate the audience and frightens Bengalsky: “Tell me, dear Fagot, what do you think, because the Moscow population has changed significantly ?. the townspeople have changed a lot... outwardly, I say, like the city itself, however. There’s nothing to say about the costumes, but these... what’s their name... trams, cars have appeared...” This reflection in the old style has a hidden polemical character, which is revealed to be sarcastic. pause before the word "externally". The Soviet government insisted on the changes that supposedly happened to people after the revolution. Therefore, Bengalsky, frightened by Woland’s discrepancy with official point view, hastens to give a translation: “The foreign artist expresses his admiration for Moscow, which has grown technically, as well as for Muscovites.” Woland is alien to any admiration, as well as indignation: “Did I express admiration?” the magician asked Fagot...” The maestro’s arrogance does not allow him to communicate directly with Bengalsky, he addresses him only through his retinue, who finds power for the lackeys and for the public suitable language that Woland does not want to get dirty with: “Congratulations, citizen, you lied!” or: “This tapericha deck, dear citizens, is in the seventh row of citizen Parchevsky.”
Woland's "heavy bass" insistently repeats "much more important question: have these citizens changed internally?" Everything that happened further clearly demonstrates the validity of Woland’s skepticism. This is the general line of behavior of Mephistopheles in Pushkin’s “Scene from Faust.” And the condescension of the prince of darkness is born of the consciousness of the insignificance of “small forces”: “Well, they are people like people. They love money, but this has always been the case... Well, they are frivolous... well... and mercy sometimes knocks on their hearts... ordinary people... In general, they resemble the old ones... housing problem only spoiled them...” Woland looks at the world from eternity, noticing the fragmentation of humanity due to the everyday difficulties of the Soviet period, as M. Zoshchenko did in the Blue Book. In the novel, Woland is presented in four main episodes: Moscow (dispute at the Patriarch’s Ponds, performance in Variety) and universal (Satan's ball, eternal refuge). Each subsequent event expands the reader's understanding of Woland's capabilities, his power. Rejecting the liquefied portrait of the devil in the first editions of the novel, Bulgakov leads the reader to an increasingly higher understanding of Woland's many-sided and mysterious appearance. , unfussy and wise, fair and even noble in his aversion to vulgarity and generous to the sufferers. With all the power of Woland, Bulgakov gives him concrete human traits, just like Yeshua is deceived by his henchmen, his leg hurts inappropriately before the ball, he is tired. from the bacchanalia of victims of vice at the ball. Woland's omniscience, manifested in guessing the most secret thoughts and knowing all the events revealed by the magic globe, does not save him from purely human difficulties. Bulgakov, following Pushkin, does not make the geniuses of good and evil supermundane, abstracted from life. Woland's stay in Moscow reveals evil, makes it obvious and turns the arrogant and self-confident inhabitants into puppets, which are controlled by his retinue, mockingly. Woland punishes evil. Satan's Ball is reminiscent of "A Feast During the Plague" not only because Margarita wants to lose herself in the clouds of demonic spells. Both Pushkin and Bulgakov have a duel between life and death, vice and holiness.
Let's see how this confrontation between Pushkin and Gogol's assessments of the natural essence of man develops in the novel "The Master and Margarita".
The epigraph from Goethe’s “Faust” seems to refer only to Woland, but, in essence, speaks of the irresistibility of good: “... so who are you, finally? - I am part of that force that always wants evil and always does good.
The separation of intentions and behavior in Bulgakov’s novel is quite consistent with the idea of Pushkin’s “Belkin’s Tales”, where a person turns out to be above his intentions, dreams, prejudices, traditions of the environment, and his own self-esteem.
The novel begins with a dispute between Ivan Bezdomny and Berlioz about Jesus, whom the proletarian poet wrote, although in “black colors,” but “... completely alive, having once existed.” Berlioz insists that Jesus is a fiction, an “ordinary myth.” This is a debate about the dimensions of life. What is the world based on: goodness, faith, miracles or ordinary sober calculation? What is life: a high mystery or an elementary primitive, the unknown or the vulgarly repetitive? This is a dispute between God and the devil. In Pushkin’s “Scene from Faust,” Mephistopheles takes away from a person all hope for the significance of at least some aspect of his life, and gives birth in Faust to an impulse of boundless evil and a command to the devil: “Drown everything!” According to Pushkin, a person is not able to live without recognizing the lofty principles of existence. In Bulgakov, Woland turns out to be a defender eternal beginnings, demonstrating the presence of mystery in the world. And therefore Bulgakov gives to this hero the “fiery eyes” of Pugachev and Pushkin himself. Woland appears as a participant and even a resolver of a dispute between two Muscovites from the literary world. It would seem, what should the devil do in a country where they don’t believe in God? But the “spirit of denial, the spirit of doubt” is called upon to refute human errors and punish them. Woland has a low opinion of people. A person, in his conviction, cannot control not only the world, but also his own destiny: “... how can a person control if he is not only deprived of the opportunity to draw up any plan, at least ridiculously short term, well, years, say, a thousand, but he cannot even vouch for his own tomorrow?" A person is mortal and does not know “where... death will be sent by fate,” he instantly turns to dust, like his plans. “An unpleasant story about sarcoma and about the tram" are immediately illustrated by the death of Berlioz. This is a phantasmagoria in the spirit of Gogol and Dostoevsky.
Woland tells the story of Pilate and Yeshua. He, and not the Moscow inhabitants, was given the talent for this, given omniscience, not only psychological, but also historical, which seems madness to Berlioz. For Muscovites, life is a kingdom of prosaic dimensions; for them there are no higher principles, no God, no devil. And this evokes a mocking remark from Woland, in which the material poverty of Soviet life and the spiritual limitations of people are connected: “What do you have, no matter what you miss, you have nothing!” However, ironizing the Muscovites, Woland is divided: he has a thirst for limitlessness and no faith. The disharmony of these principles is similar to madness and dooms Woland to loneliness: “His friends decided to look into his eyes properly and were convinced that his left one, green, was completely insane, and his right one was empty, black and dead.” Different eyes are a duel between the color of life and the color of death, calling Woland to cleanse the world of filth and despise life for the inexhaustible abundance of evil and people’s pliability to it.
The insignificance of Moscow inhabitants and their consumer appetite deprive them of the feeling of the world as a mystery, a miracle. Lack of faith, according to Bulgakov, leads people to ossification. Perhaps this is why Woland’s retinue in Moscow appropriates the animal form discarded on the farewell flight (Chapter 32). However, Woland, who exposes and punishes evil, does not believe in the good nature of man. Is he right?
M. A. Bulgakov is a talented Russian writer who worked at the beginning of the 20th century. In his work, such a trend in Russian literature as “the fight against the devil” stood out. In this sense, M. A. Bulgakov is, as it were, a continuator of the traditions of N. V. Gogol in the depiction of the devil and hell - his habitat. The author himself said about the novel “The Master and Margarita”: “I am writing a novel about the devil.” Gogol’s traditions were most clearly manifested in this work of the writer.
For example, in Gogol’s “Dead Souls,” the outskirts of the city of N appear before us as hell - with its incomprehensible season, with its small devils, but the devil himself is not openly represented. In Bulgakov's novel, the devil is visible in action, and the specific city of Moscow becomes his temporary habitat. “Moscow was giving off the heat accumulated in the asphalt, and it was clear that the night would not bring relief.” Well, isn't this hellish hell! The day turned out to be unusually hot, and on that day Woland appeared, he seemed to bring this heat with him.
Bulgakov also has such an important point as the description of the moon in the sky. The heroes constantly look at the moon, and it seems to push them to some thoughts and actions. Ivanushka stopped writing poetry, the master, looking at the moon, became worried. She is present in the novel, like a pagan goddess. And at the same time, the moon is a circle, and Gogol’s circle is a symbol of eternity, immutability, and closedness of what is happening. Perhaps Bulgakov, with the help of this detail, wanted to show that in Moscow “all the same things that already existed in ancient times are concentrated? The same people, characters, actions, virtues and vices?
Or remember the scene of Satan's ball. This is clearly a bunch of devils. Although no, not really devils - more like “dead souls”. Complete people, not even people anymore - non-humans, evil spirits, dead people. Bulgakov, as it were, continued Gogol: those dead souls that Chichikov collected in order to “resurrect” are collected and revived here. For Bulgakov, the main condition for the revival and resurrection of the soul is faith. Woland says to Berlioz’s head: “There is one among them (theories), according to which everyone will be given according to their faith.” After which Berlioz fades into oblivion. After his death, he will never go to Woland’s ball, although he sinned enough to then be a guest at this terrible celebration, and he was killed through his machinations. Here is the method of resurrecting the soul that Woland proposes: everyone will be given according to their faith. And this method turns out to be the most effective of all proposed by both Gogol and Bulgakov.
There is another point of global similarity here - the game of chess by Woland and Behemoth is reminiscent of the game of checkers by Nozdryov and Chichikov. Hippopotamus also cheats. His king, by winking, “finally understood what they wanted from him, suddenly pulled off his robe, threw it on the square and ran away from the board.” But by doing so, Behemoth, unlike Nozdryov, admits his defeat. This game can be seen as a symbolic duel between good and evil, but evil wins because of the “betrayal” of Behemoth. This is a hidden allusion to the betrayal of Pilate and the crucifixion of Yeshua. But evil does not reign supreme in the world, and the silvery lunar road symbolizes the eternity of good.
Here, in brief, are perhaps the main parallels that can be drawn between “ Dead souls"N.V. Gogol and Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita", created much later, but having the same power of influence on the reader as the great creation of the Russian genius XIX century.