Controversy around the novel Dr. Zhivago

Controversy around ‘Dr. Zhivago’

A.Charumati Ramdas

In the history of Russian literature, perhaps no literary work and its author became more controversial than Boris Leonidovich Pasternak and his novel Dr Zhivago.

Pasternak was awarded the Nobel Prize for 1958 “for outstanding achievement in modern lyrical poetry and in the field of great Russian prose.” Pasternak had to reject this highest honour and his novel could not be published in Soviet Union till 1987. During those stormy days when Pasternak was subjected to total humiliation, he had said, “ – remember – several years hence you will have to reinstate me – there are no two ways about it. This will not be the first such case.”

How rightly did Pasternak say these words! Perhaps every great poet always felt the gap between the age he lived in and eternity, towards which he strives. Boris Pasternak felt this gap even more tragically. He always thought that he was a ‘captive of his times’. But he was sure that as the time passes, his poetry will come out of this captivity and sound in future. Fragments of this captivity are preserved in history and knowledge of them unfolds a whole chain of tragic events which surrounded his immortal novel since its conception.

Boris Pasternak began writing Dr Zhivago a little after the Second World War and he completed it in 1955. Novyi Mir and Znamya had earlier shown interest in publishing Pasternak’s novel.

But as Pasternak became famous in the West and his name started being considered for the Nobel Prize since 1947, authorities started paying attention to him. It was the time when the intelligentsia was facing rough weather in the Soviet Union. Many famous writers were either sent to concentration camps, or killed or tortured. Since Pasternak was already known in the west, he could not be liquidated so easily. So they started writing against him in newspapers and literary journals. The conclusion of all such articles was that Pasternak was an agent of the capitalist world, he was writing against Soviet society and hence Soviet literature cannot tolerate him anymore.

In 1949 Pasternak’s companion and faithful friend Olga Vsevolodovna Ivinskaya was arrested and she was asked to give a brief summary of the ‘anti Soviet’ novel that Pasternak was writing. Ivinskaya wrote that Dr. Zhivago was the life story of a doctor (and also a poet) who suffered a lot in the span between the two revolutions. Ivinskaya was sent to a concentration camp for five years and when she came back in 1955 the novel was complete.

During those years Pasternak developed close contacts with those people who were constantly being ‘watched’, he would openly call Stalin a murderer. He realised that if during that time he escaped untouched, it was because ‘they’ could not force Ivinskaya to write anything against Pasternak. He remained indebted to her.

After the novel was complete it was sent to Novyi Mir as per earlier agreement. But Novyi Mir refused to publish the novel in its present form. They said they would publish only a few chapters. Pasternak understood that the novel won’t be published in the Soviet Union. He decided to give it to people for reading.

As long as Pasternak was busy writing the novel, he aimed only at depiction of reality. He wanted to be honest to himself. But when he read those two beautifully bound brown volumes, he realised that Revolution is not described in them as a ‘creak coated cake’, which has been the practice in the Soviet literature. So it was obvious that the novel won’t be published in the Soviet Union.

Soon approached the year 1956. Novyi Mir neither published the novel nor expressed any adverse comments about it. Even then Pasternak, by then, had not thought of publishing it in the West. But suddenly a few things happened with lightning speed and the novel reached Italy.

It so happened that in May 1956, the Italian Service of Moscow Radio broadcast the news that publication of the new novel of Boris Pasternak is expected. The novel is based on the events of past 70-75 years. This announcement was the beginning of a whole sequence of tragic events.

On hearing the news, famous Italian publisher Feltrinelli sends his representative Sergei D’Angelo to Pasternak with a proposal to publish the Italian version of Dr. Zhivago. Pasternak agreed to this and gave them the novel. Later on when Ivinskaya explained to him that this action might lead to a stormy scandal, Pasternak requested her to get back the manuscript from D’Angelo.

But D’Angelo had already sent it to the publisher and Feltrinelli, after having managed to read it, was bent upon publishing it.

When the literary world came to know about it there were mixed reactions. While some people laughed out the matter, others got wild. Pasternak was asked to get back the manuscript from Feltrinelli or at least request him to stay the publication till the novel was published in Soviet Union. But Feltrinelli did not yield to any pressure and the novel came out in 1957 – first the Italian version, then Russian and then in other 23 languages.  

Soon after Dr. Zhivago was published once again Soviet newspapers and journals sharply criticised Pasternak.

On 23 October 1958 Pasternak was awarded the Nobel prize for his outstanding achievements in the field of Russian literature. Pasternak responded with the words, “…grateful, glad, proud, embarrassed.”

But next morning Konstantin Fedin visited him and threatened that Pasternak should immediately refuse the prize, otherwise the newspapers would start a campaign against him the next day. Pasternak replied that no one can force him to reject this highest honour bestowed upon him, though he is ready to donate the money to the state exchequer.

This happened on 24 October and on 25 October media unleashed a planned conspiracy to torture him psychologically, to pin him down, and to demolish his image. Pasternak was termed as a “venomous citizen”, who openly hates the Soviet people…his novel is “mean, nonsensical, substandard…”

On 27 October the Writers’ Union met to discuss ‘Pasternak affair’. He was also called, but he, instead of attending the meeting send a letter consisting of 22 points. Boris Leonidovich wrote that:

-         It is possible to write Dr. Zhivago and still remain a Soviet citizen. The novel was completed at a time when Dudintsev’s Not by Bread Alone was already published which created the impression of a ‘Thaw’;

-         I gave the novel to an Italian Communist publisher and awaited the censored version of the same. I was prepared to revise the passages that would be suggested by the censor;

-         I thought that Dr. Zhivago would be met with healthy criticism;

-         No one can deprive me of the honour of receiving the Nobel prize, though I am ready to hand over the prize money to the Government Exchequer;

-         I don’t expect any justice from you. You can shoot me, exile me, do whatever you like. I forgive you in advance…I would simply suggest that you don’t act in haste. This will give you neither happiness nor fame.

  On 28 October Literaturnaya Gazeta published a letter signed by almost all famous writers of that time. The letter concluded that Pasternak was a puppet in the hands of capitalists and that he got Nobel prize as a reward for his anti soviet activities. It declared that the Writers’ Union expels him from the Union.

Though the western press was supporting Pasternak, it no longer interested him. On 29 October he wired to Stockholm: ‘In view of the importance which has been attached to the prize by the society to which I belong, I must decline it, and beg you not to be insulted by my voluntary refusal.’

But this did not help to ease out the tension. It was clear that their intention was not only to force him to refuse the Nobel Prize. They wanted to condemn him totally, humiliate him publicly, wanted him to confess all his ‘mistakes and sins’ and apologise publicly. They wanted to conquer this sensitive soul by devilish means. Moscow writers requested the government to deprive Pasternak of citizenship and deport him from the country. But for Pt Jawaharlal Nehru’s intervention, it would have been exile.

To diffuse the explosive situation, Pasternak was made to sign a letter, prepared by the authorities from the various views he had expressed on different occasions. These were put together, distorted, twisted, cut to suit their purpose. Pasternak was too exhausted to protest any more and he wanted to stop all this humiliation, hence he signed the letter, which had the following gist:

Pasternak was forced to declare that the novel was anti-revolutionary and that it was conceived out of his ignorance of the significance of the October Revolution. Further he stated that the award of the Nobel Prize was the result of an anti-Soviet conspiracy by the West to misguide the Soviet people and consequently of his own accord he was rejecting the award. He also assured the Soviet government and the Russians that he would never forsake his beloved country. He concluded with the words: ‘I believe that I shall be able to regain my old fame.’

This letter was published by Pravda on 5 November 1958. But the attacks against Pasternak continued for some more time and then slowly things became normal.

In 1989, during the centenary year of Boris Pasternak, the Nobel Prize Committee decided to recognise Pasternak’s refusal of the Nobel Prize as taken under pressure and therefore invalid, and to hand over the same to the family of the deceased prize winner. It was received by his son Evgeni Pasternak on 9 December 1989.

*******

In short about M.A.Bulgakov

बुल्गाकोव का संक्षिप्त परिचय
मिखाइल  बुल्गाकोव का जन्म युक्रेन की राजधानी कीएव में सन १८९१ में हुआ. उनके पिता कीएव की स्पिरिचुअल अकादमी में प्रोफ़ेसर थे. परिवार बड़ा और पढ़ालिखा था. परिवार में तीन लड़के और चार लड़कियां थीं . 
मिखाइल बुल्गाकोव ने मेडिकल कालेज की पढाई पूरी की, और रूसी क्रांति के उपरांत वे दूर-दराज़ के गाँवों में प्रेक्टिस करने लगे. इन अनुभवों के आधार पर उन्होंने कुछ कहानियां भी लिखी हैं.
जल्दी ही उन्हें इस बात का एहसास हो गया की डॉक्टरी में उन्हें ख़ास दिलचस्पी नहीं है, अत: सन १९२१ में वे खाली हाथ मास्को आ गए, पत्नी के साथ, और डॉक्टरी को पूरी तरह तिलांजलि देकर लेखन कार्य में जुट गए.
अनेक नाटकों तथा उपन्यासों के इस लेखक ने अखबारों में मजाकिया खाके लिखकर अपनी साहित्य यात्रा आरंभ की. साथ ही अनेक कहानियां भी लिखीं जिनमें कुछ डॉक्टरी जीवन के संस्मरण तथा कुछ व्यंग्यात्मक रचनाएं थीं. सन १९२४-१९२६ के बीच उन्होंने तीन लघु उपन्यास लिखे -- दिआबिलियादा (शैतानियत) , रोकोविए यैत्सा (दुर्भाग्यशाली अंडे ) और कुत्ते का दिल(सबाच्ये सेर्द्त्से).
तत्कालीन सोवियत जीवन पर  निर्ममता से प्रहार करने वाली इन रचनाओं के कारण उन पर शासन द्वारा ज्यादतियां की जाने लगी.
बुल्गाकोव ने कुछ नाटक भी लिखे जिनमे प्रमुख हैं : बेग (पलायन), ज़ोय्किना क्वार्तीरा (जोया का फ्लैट), दनी तूर्बिनीख (तूर्बिंन परिवार के अंतिम  दिन ) तथा बग्रोवी अस्त्रोव(लाल द्वीप).
कुछ अन्य रचनाएँ हैं: उपन्यास बेलाया ग्वार्दिया (श्वेत गार्ड ), जो स्वयँ बुल्गाकोव को बेहद पसन्द था; झीज़्न गस्पदीना मोल्येरा (मोल्येर महाशय का जीवन) और तिआत्राल्नी रमान( किस्सा थियेटर का)..
अपना महानतम उपन्यास मास्टर और मार्गारीटा उन्होंने  सन १९२८ में आरंभ किया. अपनी आखों की ज्योति खोकर भी इस उपन्यास को पूर्ण करके सन १९४० में वे हमेशा के लिए इस संसार से बिदा हो गए.
मित्रों, हमारा प्रयास रहेगा की बुल्गाकोव का उपन्यास हिन्दी में आपके सम्मुख प्रस्तुत करें, कठिनाइयां तो अवश्य आएंगी, जैसा की बुल्गाकोव पर काम करने वालों के साथ होता है, पर आशा करते हैं की बुल्गाकोव का सहयोग इस कार्य में हमें प्राप्त होगा.
बुल्गागोव पर बनाए गए ब्लॉग का पता है:
http://masteraurmargaritahindi.blogspot.com
आमीन!    

   

Abot OBERIUs

“OBERIU” and Alexander Vvedensky’s Christmas Tree at the Ivanovs

--A.Charumati Ramdas

Absurd! Incomprehensible! Erotic! – These adjectives are not enough to describe Christmas Tree at the Ivanovs. They, on the contrary, reflect just one aspect of almost all the works of OBERIUs (who were not as well known as the futurists and other formalists of the 20’s of the last century), one of the founder figures of which, along with Daniel Charms , was Alexander Vvedensky.

Russian literature of the first 20-30 years of the XX century was known for formalists as well as for socialist realists. In the post revolutionary-post symbolist scenario, almost every literary group – whether of formalist or socialist leaning tried to assert itself, tried to prove that it was the true representative of their epoch and hope for the future! In fact, during the early 20’s, almost everyday literary groups were emerging and vanishing in quick succession. Only a handful of them could survive for a substantial period of time and leave some imprint on the literature.

As is well known, during the first half of 20’s, young Soviet poetry was in search of new forms of expression. Obviously, the new challenges, the new life demanded a dynamic language that would not remain confined within the four walls of a room! Silence was not the need of the time, but it was the street talk that was required. Typical examples of such a ‘talk’ could serve A.Blok’s The Twelve and V. Mayakovsky’s Mystery Buff.

But, at the same time, some really “incomprehensible” type of poetry was also being written by futurists, where the poet was more concerned with rhythm rather than the communicative function of the language or the social obligation of poetry. Famous among the futurists were Khlebnikov, Kruchenykh, Kamensky, Pasternak, Shklovsky, Mayakovsky etc. To these famous futurists clung a few ‘lesser known’ formalists, but such associations often proved short-lived. Later these ‘less famous’ formalists organised their own groups and continued writing ‘incomprehensible poetry’. Young poets, like A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms, considered their poetry as ‘revolutionary poetry’. One of them, A.Tufanov even proposed an ‘incomprehensible, axial classification of poets’ according to which, “poets within an angle of 1⁰ -40⁰ correct the world, those within 14⁰-89⁰ reproduce, those within 90⁰-179⁰ decorate it. Only the ‘incomprehensibles’ and ‘expressionists’ situated between 180⁰-360⁰, while distorting or reforming it, prove to be the real revolutionaries”.

Though these poets were called ‘Zaumniks’ by the established ones, A.Vvedensky and Daniel Charms preferred to be called ‘Chinarists’. They were taken as ‘non-serious’, ‘jokers’ of the new times. In fact they were presenting poetry of a non serious nature where an absurd but lively world was created. Everything was topsy-turvy, abnormal: the dead came back to life, porridge was not eaten but drunk (along with the box!), people walked with their backs forward and all such nonsensical things! In order to create such jokes they not only distorted the form of the ‘word’ but also confused its relation with other words. By doing so, they tried to kill boredom and depression and posed a challenge to ‘realism’ which, according to them, was ‘hypocritical’.

At the end of 1927, the ‘Chinarists’ formed a new group ‘Association of Real Art (Obyedineniye Realnogo Isskustva) or ‘OBERIU’ (ОБЭРИУ) and now, instead of non-serious things they tried to depict the world in a subjective, clear, bright, clean way. The ‘art’ free from the norms of day to day world was indeed the ‘real’ art in their opinion!

“You might suspect,” wrote OBERIUs in their manifesto, “that this is not the same object that you see in life? Go nearer and touch it with your fingers. Look at the object with naked eyes, and you will notice that it is free from the dilapidated literary gilt. You might think that our subjects are ‘non-real’, ‘illogical’? But does art need worldly logic? We appreciate the beauty of a woman’s portrait, ignoring the fact, that contrary to anatomical logic the artist has turned her shoulder blade and shifted it to a side. ‘Art’ has its own logic and it does not destroy the subject, but helps to identify it.”

The group (OBERIU) consisted of only a few poets: A. Vvedensky, Daniel Charms, N. Zabolotsky, K. Vaginov, I. Bakhterev and B. Levin.

   

Each of them had his own logic, which looked naïve, fantastic.

OBERIUs paid attention not to the idea, not to the subject, nor the form of a literary work, but to something else which was very hazy and incomprehensible to a rational mind, while being comprehensible only to them. They framed their own model of the world, of world order, relations between words seemed illogical in their works but it was convincing, natural. But in spite of its ‘illogical’ nature the poetry of OBERIUs was poetry of thought, of deep and warm ideas.

‘Time’ and ‘Death’ occupy an important place in the works of OBERIUs. Man’s interaction with nature, the dignity of man and other such problems of human life attracted them. The wonderful thing about these problems is that they talked as if on behalf of a child or an eccentric creature or a ‘real thinker’. This enabled them to cast a clear, clean glance at the object. But as a result of this ‘child’s perception of things’, a comical situation is often created. But OBERIUs don’t make fun of life; don’t look at it from the view point of a satirist.

OBERIUs also loved the grotesque, absurd, erotic, unusual, incomprehensible, and fantastic. That is why in spite of not being in the limelight and facing victimisation, the poems of Vvedensky and Charms have not totally disappeared even today. Both of them were famous as ‘children’s poets’ but they also wrote a few things for the grown ups.

In the light of these observations we shall discuss A.Vvedensky’s play Christmas tree at the Ivanovs. Vvedensky’s ‘childish adult’ image is seen here and there in the play. 

*************

Written in 1938 Christmas tree at the Ivanovs consists of four acts comprising a total of nine scenes. The action takes place in the 90’s of the XIX century i.e. two decades before the October Revolution, so it is quite possible that the author acts like a fortune-teller and predicts the events that are likely to take place after two decades of the October Revolution.

A.Vvedensky is fond of Time and does all sorts of experiments with it. A few details deserve special mention:

1. At the beginning and end of every scene, the author does not forget to describe the clock on the wall and the time shown there in. This facilitates parallel depiction of events. In the first scene the clock shows 9.00 o’clock in the evening and the scene ends with the clock showing midnight. In the second scene the action takes place in the nearby wood and the same clock shows the same 9.00 o’clock of night as the beginning and the scene ends at midnight. The position of the clock is also fixed, it is “to the left of the door.” Every scene begins with the mention of time in this clock irrespective of whether the action takes place in the house of the Ivanovs or in the woods, or in the street or in the court, or in a mental asylum. By making the clock show time the author has also shown that the total action lasts for 22 hours i.e. from nine in the evening to 7.00 o’clock next evening. A very good use of this device is made to show simultaneous actions at different places.

2. Another peculiarity is the ‘actors’ of the play. Each one of them deserves a special mention. The author talks about the age of ‘children’, but there is no mention of the age of parents. The youngest is ‘one year old’ Petya Perov. Then comes 8 years old Nina Serova, followed by Varya Petrova, 17; Volodya Komarov, 25; Sonya Ostrova, 32; Misha Pestrov, 76; and Dunya Shustrova, 82. It is interesting to note that the petronym of these children is not the same, though they are the children of same father. But order of the patronyms is rhythmic:

Petrov, Komarov, Pestrov; Serova, Petrova, Ostrova, Shustrova.

The family, apart from these seven children and their parents consists of servants and cooks as well. Among the other characters are teachers of Latin and Greek.

It is clear that this family represents an old aristocratic type of family, symbol of old, pre-Revolutionary Russia.

The plot in short is this:

The Puziryev family is waiting for a Christmas tree, which is scheduled to be decorated the next day. The parents have gone to the theatre. While the children are given bath in a common tub, some altercation takes place between Sonya Ostrova and the maid. The maid cuts off the head of the naughty girl and on the eve of Christmas the first death in the family takes place. The maid is arrested, the Christmas tree is decorated and one by one all the children, followed by their parents, die. Even the judges in the court, where the murderer was tried, die. So, it is death and more death. Death on the eve of Christmas! The Christmas tree, which symbolises birth, witnesses so many deaths. But it is the old, aristocratic system that dies on the eve of birth of something great – the new system. Even those who survive, like the wood cutter and other servants, study and become teachers, this also conforms to the changes that took place in the social system of Russia.

Some expressions are really startling. In the second scene of first act are shown wood cutters who are cutting trees in the wood. The scene begins with their song, but a little later the author explains that they are dumb, and the song which they were singing happened just by chance! And life is full of such accidents!

In the next scene the severed head, on witnessing the melancholy scene around, comments:

 HEAD: Body, did you hear?

BODY: O HEAD, I did not hear anything. I don’t have ears. But I have felt everything.

This is the description of those who don’t hear anything, who remain indifferent to everything around them. The confession of Petya Petrov is also similar: “I can’t speak. I speak by thoughts. I am little, I am a fool, I don’t remember anything!” Such people, as we know, were in abundance in the Society during the 30’s of XX century.

A.Vvedensky, shows his talent as a poet in many dialogues. Some examples will show what sort of poetry he wrote:

Scene eight has this song, which the judges in the court sing one by one:

Russian                                  Transliteration                     Translation

Судим                                 Sudim                                Judging

Будем                                 Budem                              Shall be

Судить                                Sudit’                                  Judging

И будить                             I budit’                              And waking

Людей.                               Lyudei                                 People.

Несут                                  Nesut                                  Carrying

Суд                                    Sud                                       Judgement

И сосуд                              I sosud                                And vessel

На блюде                           Na blyude                              On a plate

Несут                                 Nesut                                   Carrying

На посуде                          Na posude                            In a dish

Судей                                Sudei                                     Judges.

Seventh scene has this song by the dog VERA:

Я хожу вокруг гроба.                     I roam around the grave.

Я гляжу вокруг  в оба.                    I look at both.

Это смерть – Это проба.                 Here is death – Here is trial.

--------------------                           --------------

Жизнь дана в украшение.             Life is given in decoration

Смерть дана в устраешение          Death given in horror

Для чего же разрушениею.            Why then this destruction?

The author has beautifully used proper nouns Kozlov and Oslov with their common noun counterparts: (common nouns Kozlov means ‘goats’ and Oslov means ‘donkeys’):

Зимним вечером Козлов               On a winter evening Kozlov

Щёл к реке купать козлов             Took the goats to the river

Видит ществует Ослов                 Sees approaching Oslov

Он ведёт с реки ослов.                Bringing donkeys from the river.

In the last pathetic scene, when one after the other all the children are dying, Puzireva – the mother asks, “Is there a Sun behind the window?” The question seems ridiculous how could the Sun be there at seven o’clock in the evening in December, when “there is so much snow that you can happily carry it in carts; (scene 2); but there is another contradiction to this in scene 3, when, while describing the setting the author talks about a candle flowing in the river! How could there be water on the surface of river during December! So, it is clear that Puzireva’s question is not about the presence of the Sun, it is about Hope and Optimism which could enable them to live despite their sorrow. But Puzirev’s answer is not at all promising: “How can there be a Sun, when it is still evening.” There is no indication of an earlier end to this evening that has witnessed so many deaths at the same time! The whole Puzirev family dies, two judges die ‘without waiting for Christmas’ and the remaining judges exclaim:

We are scared by two deaths.

A rare event – judge for yourself.

Obviously this refers to the purges of the 30’s when there were deaths everywhere and people were always scared. They pretended not to see, not to say anything. They pretended to be dumb and blind. This was really the order of the day and Vvedensky in this absurd, incomprehensible manner tried to depict the reality of the 30’s when while waiting for a new life, people were dying without any complaint! As if they were waiting for their turn!

M. Bulgakov's " The Fateful Eggs"

The Fateful Eggs: A Lesson for Posterity

-A.Charumati Ramdas

“Manuscripts don’t burn”, says one of the characters in M. Bulgakov’s novel “Master and Margarita”. That refers not only to the physical existence of the manuscripts, but the matter contained in them – their content, their soul. So far as Bulgakov’s works are concerned, their soul is eternal, the message conveyed (be it realistically, ironically or fantastically expressed) is always relevant: for all ages, all people, all societies, all governments.

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (1891-1940), a doctor by profession, began his literary career with humorous sketches in various newspapers; specially Gudok (Siren).Two decades of this literary activity saw his struggle against odds, against ill wishers, to defend his principles. During 1924-26, Bulgakov published two parts of his novel The White Guards and two collections of satirical short stories Diaboliad and A Treaties on Housing.

In 1924, Bulgakov published his novelette The Fateful Eggs. But the novelette A Dog’s Heart, which he wrote in 1925, could be published in USSR only after Perestroika.

His magnum opus Master and Margarita, to which he devoted 12 long years (1928-1940), was cleared for publication in the Soviet Union only in 1967. It is by now well known to Western and Indian readers as well.

Master and Margarita is a synthesis of reality, fantasy, religion, humour, satire…almost everything that could be contributed to a piece of literature. But, few would suspect that Bulgakov had been experimenting with that kind of combination since much earlier: since 1924. He toys with it in his satirical stories, but not for the sake of literary innovation. It is for something else. Buried deep deep under the mountain, as it were, of BUlgakov’s satire, there is something startling, which can be deciphered only if one reads closely, very carefully not just what is between the lines, but even that, which is hidden behind what is between the lines. Each work of Bulgakov, whether a story, a novelette, or a novel, has so much to convey, however invisible to the naked eye as it were, that volumes and volumes could be produced while decoding the message. Here, an effort is made to discover the hidden message in The Fateful Eggs (Rokovye yaitsa).

The plot of the novelette is deceptively simple. A surface reading would convey the statement that scientific innovations could be immensely useful to mankind if exploited properly, but can lead to disaster and catastrophe if they fall into the hands of misinformed.

Prof. Persikov is quite satisfied with his experiments on toads and other harmless creatures until he accidentally discovers the Red Ray of Life. Under the influence of this Ray, a new and stronger variety of living organisms could be created. The discovery is a revolution in the field of life sciences. Soon, the news of Persikov’s invention spreads like wild fire. The authorities decide to use his Ray for producing a better variety of poultry, which was on the verge of extinction due to plague. All of Persikov’s equipment is shifted to Smolensk and set up in a Soviet State Farm (Sovkhoz).Eggs specially imported from Germany are placed under the Ray of Life. But, alas! The ‘fateful’ eggs produced not chicken, but snakes and crocodiles, which, under the influence of the Red Ray, acquired enormous proportions and strength. They unleash a reign of horror in the province, eating off the victims after breaking their limbs and bones with their powerful clutches and jaws. Horror of horrors, they multiply in no time, with every new reptile surpassing all the previous ones in size, strength and tyranny. A whole army of these deadly creatures comes out of the hot house and proceeds towards Moscow, devouring everything on the way. All efforts to liquidate them fail. People in their anger against the inventor of the Ray of Death (?) lynch Persikov and his assistants. Only a severe snowfall that lasted three full days could finally wipe out the reptiles from the face of earth. Persikov and his invention were gradually forgotten. Remarkably enough, all efforts to produce the Red Ray of Life again proved futile.

The novelette, a seemingly simple and innocent story advocating proper use of scientific innovation, is, however, pregnant with hidden messages. Bulgakov makes it all look so simple by mixing elements of fantasy, realism, science fiction, bitter satire, grotesque situations, and also a concern for ethics.

The Fateful Eggs belongs to the 20’s, the period of war communism, when people were made to (along with a number of other things) practically shrink in their homes. Three rooms from Persikov’s 5-room apartment are taken away to accommodate others. They were returned to him only in 1926. Thus, the story has a melancholy opening: Persikov’s wife runs away with a singer in 1913, and the toads in his laboratory die of starvation one after the other. That forces reptiles to their extinction and then the cockroaches start disappearing.

Rarely does a thing begin with death, come to life mid-way through and again die towards the end. During such a period of short lived optimism, Prof Persikov continues with his lectures at the Institute and his experiments in the laboratory.

It was then that he made the discovery. Observing some amoeba in a suspension under the microscope, Persikov suddenly notices that certain amoeba, under the influence of a light beam, started multiplying at lightening speed and devouring one another. In the merciless battle, the strong conquered the weak and also multiplied, with each new one emerging bigger and stronger. In the beam of light that was falling on the suspension, Persikov could distinctly see a “sharp sword-like ray of red colour”.     

That is one clue. The ray was red – the colour of communism, and it was sharp as a sword – ruthless. And only the sharp red sword could make the amoeba defy all norms, violate all known laws. Those under the umbrella of the communist regime of the day could do the same. The regime is the catalyst for an unending struggle for survival, for power. And every survivor and every newcomer is bigger, stronger and more fearsome.

The country was ravaged first by the First World War (1914-1918), then by the Civil War (a918-1922). In between, it underwent two revolutions- the failed February and the ‘successful’ October revolutions of 1917. And, history only knows too well what kind of struggle for power ensued after the death of V.I.Lenin in 1924. In this holocaust, not just the imperial family was liquidated, not just the White Guards (Mensheviks) was destroyed, even Bolshevics conveniently disappeared in thousands. Even among the ‘own’ people, it is not just the harmless toads that are liquidated, not just the deadly reptiles that come to extinction. If even cockroaches, which can normally go without food for a whole month and can easily survive the worst of natural calamities – since they can devour practically anything, right from food crumbs through soap to iron and steel – if even these most efficient scavengers start disappearing, one can imagine the vagaries of this struggle for existence.

Note Bulgakov’s choice of towns – Smolensk and Moscow – for setting up Persikov’s Red Ray equipment and for the destination of the deadly creatures. Smolensk boasted of the Party Headquarters and Moscow was the capital. In Persikov’s laboratory, his invention is tested only on harmless toads. And the experiment is successful. In Smolensk, even the inventor is not consulted. Worse still, his equipment is exploited by the illiterate Director of the State Farm, who cannot tell hen’s eggs from those of snakes and crocodiles. This speaks volumes about Bulgakov’s opinion about the brains that run the Party. And the deadly products of this Smolensk march towards the seat of power, the capital.

The eggs are imported from Germany. Eggs as a metaphor, refers to the Communism which came from Marx who was a German. Two batches of eggs are imported: one, that of reptiles for Persikov’s experiments and the other, of hens for the Sokhoz. By mistake the laboratory parcel reaches the Sovkhoz and the one of hens reaches Persikov.

The name of the illiterate, yet authoritative and greedy Sovkhoz Director is Rokk. The Russian word for ‘Fate’ (neutral) is Sud’ba, but the word for ‘Fate’ (usually tragic) is Rok. By adding just one more ‘K’ to make the Director’s name, whose pronunciation is nevertheless the same, Bulgakov makes his intention clear.

The title of the story (Rokovye Yaitsa) too has a story to tell. It can mean ‘eggs’ that are fateful, deadly, harbingers of destruction’. It can also mean eggs handed over by rok, or tragic/evil/doomed Fate. If one tries to dwell deep into the word ROK, it can be deciphered as Russian Organisation of Kommunists (C is written as K in this word in Russian).

Generally speaking, stories are written based on past or contemporary events. But The Fateful Eggs gives one the feeling that it is based on future events to which the author had an uncanny access, in advance. Several events portrayed in the novelette match with what actually happened after 1924. Not just the march of products of Smolensk to Moscow, not just the ‘dog eats dog’ tendencies; but even the purges of late 20’s and the 30’s are depicted there. In the novelette people run away from Smolensk and the army sets it on fire to get rid of the deadly reptiles. And during the Second World War, almost two decades after 1924 and a few years after Bulgakov’s death, the retreating Soviet army and the inhabitants burnt and abandoned Smolensk. Was Bulgakov merely hinting that the only finale ‘Smolensk’ can reach is to go up in flames? Also the fierce fighting in Vyazma and Mozhaisk and the panic in Moscow and its evacuation during the Second World War are startlingly parallel to Bulgakov’s description.

Bulgakov writes the story in 1924, but sets it up in 1928. And he states that Meyerhold “died in 1927”, while actually Meyerhold died in 1940. Bulgakov implies that Meyerhold as a dramatist was as good as dead, once he towed the official line and a theatre was named after him (which too actually happened).

Bulgakov misses no opportunity to take a dig at Man. After discovering the Red Ray, Prof. Persikov closely examines the source of the Ray. It was not coming from the Sun or any other natural source. It was emanating from the electric bulb illuminating his dark, gloomy laboratory. All devastating power, all sufferings are Man-made.

   

Now let us indulge in some worthwhile experiments. Take any society, any government in any country at any point of time in the history of mankind. Wouldn’t the history of The Fateful Eggs apply to it? Isn’t it always the ‘fittest of the day’ who survive in the struggle for existence?

Take the recent ‘putsch’ in Moscow. The inventor of reforms is sidelined and overshadowed, just like Persikov, and power goes into the hands of those who do not possess the same vision. Can the result be anything other than disaster?

That is the eternal value of Bulgakov’s fiction. If only Man learns at least some lesson from his own experience!

********

The Crimson Island

Decoding M.Bulgakov’s The Crimson Island

                                                              A.Charumati Ramdas

The Crimson Island, written by the author of Master and Margarita, remains one of the most mysterious plays of world. Looking quite innocent on the surface, the play, which saw the stage just for one theatrical season, only in Moscow, was first published as a satirical sketch on 20^th April 1924 in the newspaper NAKANUNE. Bulgakov, for that matter was often writing various types of sketches in various newspapers for his livelihood.

A doctor by profession, Mikhail Afanasevich Bulgakov (1891-1940), started his literary career by writing small autobiographical sketches. He was also connected with the railways’ journal GUDOK and regularly contributed satirical sketches to such journals as NAKANUNE and ROSSIA. Among his early famous works Notes of a Young Doctor, White Guards, Diaboliad, and Theatrical Novel etc. were published in the Soviet Union. The last work of Bulgakov which was published in his motherland was his story Morphine. In early 20’s he wrote a variety of satirical works, most famous among them were Fateful Eggs (which was published in 1925) and Heart of a Dog (which was not published in the Soviet Union). These two novellas reflect the socio-political life of that time. The author used scientific fantasy for depicting the bitter reality of the NEP period.

Along with satirical sketches, short stories and novellas M.Bulgakov penned down a few plays as well in the 20’s. Days of Turbins, Zoya’s Flat, White Guards etc. were staged in different theatres of Moscow but The Crimson Island proved controversial. It could be shown in one of the theatres of Moscow just for one theatrical season and was never published in the Soviet Union. Comments of author, director etc. can be seen in the margin of the manuscript.

The play The Crimson Island staged in the Kamernyi Theatre of Moscow in Dec 1928 was developed around the satirical sketch (published in 1924). The sketch describes very innocently the history of Soviet Union up to 1924. Consisting of three parts and fourteen sections the sketch has a subtitle which reads like this:

THE CRIMSON ISLAND

Novel by Comrade Jules Verne

Translated from French into Aesopian

By

M.A.Bulgakov

This subtitle speaks a lot about the new proletarian literature. Bulgakov made full use of this subtitle when he converted this sketch into drama. Here author of the play, Dymogatskyi, is introduced as “Comrade Dymogatskyi, who is also Jules Verne.” Bulgakov laughs at those proletarian writers who wrote under this very name and also various pseudonyms as well from European literature. In fact young soviet writers, especially proletarian writers, had a fascination for copying not only names but also the themes from works of well known European writers.

The style of the sketch is similar to A.P.Chekhov’s parody Flying Islands which was introduced by the author as An Essay by Jules Verne, translated by A.Chekhonte. Using minute fantastic details for exposing reality, Bulgakov, like Chekhov, had set a particular goal for himself. But while Chekhov aimed at exposing fantasy like reality, Bulgakov’s target was manifold. He used each word, each phrase, each episode with an intention of laughing at writers, theatrical life, bureaucracy and put forth a demand for freedom of creation. The subtitle, which led to the creation of pseudo Jules Verne, points at the tendency of ‘Julevernovshina’. This ‘Julevernovshina’ was at the core of neo-proletarian writers, who “manufactured” socially oriented texts by copying ideas from European literature. This practice was in abundance in the soviet literature of the 20’s. One of Bulgakov’s friends Yuri Slyozkin even translated his name into French as George (for Yuri) Delarm (larme-Slyozi-tears) and published two novels using this pseudonym. This parody under the subtitle ‘Comrade Jules Verne’ was directed against the contemporary prose and (after conversion into a play) against theatrical life and bureaucracy as well.

As a satirical sketch, The Crimson Island had a not so complicated theme. The names used for places, characters, as well as events, are taken from popular works of Jules Verne (mostly from his Children of Captain Grant). But a careful reading reveals their true identity. As mentioned earler, the sketch consists of three parts. First part is titled as Explosion of a Volcano; Second – Island in Flames and the third part has The Crimson Island as its title. It needs more than one reading to decipher the meaning of these titles: First title means Outbreak of Revolution; second – country in the grip of Revolution and third-Country of the Reds or the Soviet Union.

Without naming any persons or places, the author tells the readers about an island which was situated in the otherwise stormy Pacific Ocean. The combination of Storm and Calm (Pacific) indicates the turbulent ancient history of Russia. This island was inhabited by the tribe of red Ethiopians who were glorious natives of this land. By using the adjectives red (Krasnyi) and glorious (Slavni, which sounds nearer to Slavyane) Bulgakov at once gives clue to understand about whom the narration is going to be. Slavyane were the native Russians and reds were none other than communists. In order to clarify this point further, author says that the other two groups of people who lived on that island were white blackmoors and blackmoors of indefinite colour who were also called double-dyed. Having described the inhabitants by colours Bulgakov adds that though the reds outnumbered whites and the double-dyed ones, it was the white blackmoors who were ruling the island. Their king was Sizi-Buzi, commander of armed forces was Riki Tiki Tavi.  

Riki Tiki Tavi was the faithful mongoose in R. Kipling’s story, based on a tale from the Panchtantra, where the mongoose killed the kobra when it tried to attack the little child of his master. The choice of this name for the commander of armed forces is significant. In the sketch Riki goes to the Europeans to seek their help in fighting the Red Ethiopians. He participates in the armed expedition to the Crimson Island and is killed by the knife of a white blackmoor. IN the dramatised version Bulgakov changes his name a little and calls him Likki-Tikki. Likki-Tikki understands the national interests and goes back to the side of Red Ethipians and saves the island from foreign intervention. Bulgakov, while introducing characters of his drama mentions that there is an “army of blackmoors, negative in the beginning but repentant towards the end”. This explanation about the blackmoors’ army and behaviour of Likki-Tikki is itself an irony of the works of proletarian writers where the transformation of whites (anti revolutionaries, intelligentsia) into conscious supporters of the Revolution occupies the central place.

Bulgakov further says that while the Reds were busy with cultivation, fishing and collecting tortoise eggs, the whites enjoyed the fruits of their labour.

An Englishman, Lord Glinervan accompanied by a Frenchman came to this island and established business relations with Sizi Buzi. A major part of the profit went to Sizi Buzi and his courtiers, while the Reds received only nuts.

In section 3 of part I Bulgakov writes that Sizi Buzi and his commander used to stay at the foot of a volcano, which had extinguished 300 years ago. The seat of the ruler at the ‘foot of extinguished volcano’ points to the 300 years old rule of the Romanov dynasty which had come to power after a long bloody struggle and which was overthrown after the October Revolution. To show that the Romanovs always lived under some threat or the other Bulgakov chose to show the seat of the Ruler at the foot of a volcano, which erupted after a span of 300 years killing Sizi Buzi and his clan. This time the eruption symbolises Revolution wherein the last Czar was overthrown and killed.

To depict the times of provisional (Interim) government which took over soon after the Revolution and also Kerensky – head of this Interim Government Bulgakov devoted two sections in Part I. He writes:

 “Soon after the eruption the ethopians were in a state of shock. But the next moment every one – The Reds as well as the Whites – thought, “what next?” But they were again taken aback when the lazy drunkard and famous as double-dyed, a black moor Kiri Kuki came forward all in red and announced:

“Now since we have got independence, I thank you all.”

No one could understand why should Kiri Kuki say “thanks”, but they shouted, “Hurray!” (p. 484)

Kiri Kuki declared himself head of the government. First thing that he did was to name the island as ‘Crimson Island’. He promised to distribute vodka to every one, which he imported by exporting maize from the country. This resulted in shortage of food and unrest among the reds and one evening the whole island was seen in flames. Kiri Kuki fled away and the whole world was shocked after receiving telegram from the correspondent of “Times” who was on the Crimson Island:

 “Ethopians have accomplished a Great Revolution. Island in flames, Plague epidemic, mountains of dead”. (p.486)

In the second and third parts the author describes how the absconding Whites reach Lord Glinervan and request for an armed intervention. How the intervention takes place, how does it fail, and in the meanwhile how the island achieves great scientific progress, health and prosperity. In a span of seven years “The Crimson Island” became a self-dependent, flourishing island. Obviously this was the sequence of historical events between 1917 and 1924.

Had M. Bulgakov stopped here, it would have become a controversial, satirical masterpiece. But he developed it into a drama and while doing so he included many more characters and included some very fine dialogues in it. The very title of this play also underwent some change. Now it read like this:

                         ---------------------------------------------------

“Crimson Island”

Grand rehearsal of the play

Written by Citizen Jules Verne

In the theatre of Gennadi Panfilovich,

With music, volcanic eruption and English sailors.

In four acts with Prologue and Epilogue

                         ---------------------------------------------------

Being grand rehearsal of a drama in a theatre, the play has now acquired a double structure – ‘drama within a drama’, by virtue of which it was imperative to show the author, the director of theatre, people’s commissar who would grant permission for staging the play, workers of the theatre and so on.

Apart from Sizi Buzi and Likki Tikki Bulgakov included Gennadi Panfilovich – Director of the theatre, who plays the role of Lord Glinervan; Vasili Dymogatskii, who is Jules Verne and plays Kiri Kuki, Metelkin Nikanor, assistant of the director, who plays the roles of servant Pasporta, as well as talking parrot. There is also Betsi, maid servant of Lady Glinervan and Savva Lukich – the people’s commissar. Inclusion of these additional characters and behind the stage dialogues depicts some harsh realities of the socio-cultural as well as political life of that time.

Savva Lukich is the backbone of all cultural events of that time (and also of future). Without his approval, nothing can be stages or printed. Gennadi Panfilovich is trying to get clearance for “The Crimson Island”, but Savva Lukich has to go to Crimea. The writer Jules Verne (Dymogatskii) has not yet brought the script. The roles have to be distributed. Only a few hours are left for Savva Lukich’s departure. So, the experienced director, Gennadi Panfilovich, decides to present grand rehearsal before Savva Lukich in record time. In between Savva Lukich has to be served tea; taken for a round in the ship (which was to be shown on the stage). So the roles are distributed like this:

 Panfilovich decides to play Lord Glinervan. Writer Jules Verne decides to play Kiri Kuki because the main actor of the theatre is missing. When it comes to distributing the roles of Lady Glinervan and Betsy – the better and prestigious role obviously goes to the director’s wife. Bulgakov uses this episode by putting a dialogue in Sizi Buzi’s mouth:

“I had warned you Gennadi – don’t marry an actress…you will always find yourself in such embarrassing situation.” (p.303) This was a mockery of well known directors of that time – Meyerhold and Tairov – whose wives were actresses.

The more talented actress was made to play maid servant Betsy.

One sentence in the Prologue by Gennadi Panfilovich reveals a lot. Panfilovich receives a few phone calls – requests for free passes. He scold almost  everyone by saying that his theatre never gives free passes. But the last telephone call from the Incharge of Water Works forces him to change his tone as well as his policy:

“What…free passes to no one…sorry, Evgeni Romualdovich! Excuse me, I did not recognise your voice. How come…with wife? Fantastic! Right at quarter to eight, please come to the counter.”

And then he orders his assistant:

 “Metelkin, please ask the cashier to arrange two extra chairs in the second row for this watery devil.” (p.298)

Obviously, people occupying important administrative positions had already started taking advantage of the same. Bulgakov gathered courage to expose them.

Some dialogues reveal the norms laid down by the authorities for the writers:

DYMOGATSKI: You see, it’s an allegory…on the island…you see, fantasy. On the island live red natives ruled and exploited by white moors. Then there is volcanic eruption…

SIZI BUZI: Drama ends with the victory of white moors?

GENNADI: It ends with the victory of red ethopians…It can’t end otherwise.” (p.302)

Gennadi Panfilovich believes that The Theatre is like a temple, he also advises Adelaida Karpovna to have some fear of God when she protests on being given the of maid servant. She throws two sentences at him:

“Only yesterday, in the general meeting, in Savva Lukich’s presence you declared that there is no God. But as soon as he left the theatre, your God has suddenly appeared on the stage!

GENNADI: I protest against this tone! Theatre is…

KARPOVNA: A place of intrigues!” (p.303)

This was probable Bulgakov’s own experience which he expressed through this sentence.

The actor, playing a parrot is asked not to say ‘nonsense things’ on the stage, but some SLOGAN LIKE THINGS.

After watching the grand rehearsal Savva Lukich declares that the play is counter revolutionary and consequently it stands prohibited. The monologue of the author following this decision is startling:

“KIRI KUKI: The laundress shouts everyday: when will you pay for washing?! The stars look at me through window at night, window panes are broken, no resources to fix new ones! Half an year…Half an year I burnt and extinguished, I saw some light now…with pen in my hands, with empty stomach. The storm wails and I have no gloves!...

SAVVA: What is this? Where is this dialogue?

KIRI KUKI: It is from here…from me…from the depth of my heart.

LORD: Savva Lukich, this is monologue. Please have some tea!

KIRI KUKI: Half an year…Half an year…I ran to publishing houses…3 roubles 75 kopeeks…yes, that was my honorarium…I begged…give me 3 roubles in advance…I shall soon finish my Crimson Island…and here, this crooked oldie appears…

SAVVA: Excuse me, this is about whom?

KIRI KUKI: …and with one stroke of pen killed me…here is my chest, kill me with your pen!

LORD: What are you doing, unfortunate creature?! Tea please!

KIRI KUKI: I have nothing to lose…spit at the conquered…trample down the half dead eagle!

….and who are the judges? Since ancient times they have been antagonistic to free life. Judgements are dug from the forgotten newspapers of Kolchak’s time and conquest of Crimea.” (p.343)

The director feels that he is in trouble because of Kiri Kuki (The author). He tries to please Savva Lukich by saying that the writer is insane.

Though Savva Lukich initially declares that it is a counter revolutionary play, but ultimately he suggests some dialogues on solidarity and international revolution, which the assistant director immediately incorporates and finally the play is permitted for staging. Without consulting the author the changes are made and sale of tickets begins.

The character of Savva Lukich was obviously included by M.Bulgakov to point out the role people like Savva Lukich play in the cultural life of country. Interference of the people’s commissar, fate of the author and his play could be beautifully shown by using the technique of ‘drama within a drama’ and the form ‘grand rehearsal’

Director of the Kamernii Theatre Tairov, anticipating trouble in getting clearance from the real commissar, issued a number of press releases in order to create a favourable atmosphere for the staging of The Crimson Island in his theatre. One such release, which appears in “The Cultural Life” was as follows:

“Staging of the Crimson Island is continuation of Kamernii Theatre’s efforts to reflect the vulgar and repulsive phenomena of life and a satirical exposition of the tendency to bear with them.

Place of action of the Crimson Island is theatre.

This is the grand rehearsal of the play written by Citizen Jules Verne in Gennadi Panfilovich’s theatre, with music, volcanic eruption and English sailors.

This theatre is situated in a city which has a whole force of actors, theatrical machinery and which, after having swept by the storm of revolution, has decided to fall in line with other “obedient”, “propaganda” theatres, staging ‘Ideological’ plays.

Dramatist Dymagotskii very much likes Jules Verne, so much, that he has used this name as pseudonym. He can write any kind of play for anybody using Julevernish exotic background. Dymogatskii is expert in writing unusual scenes, exploited masses, interventions, volcanic eruption, English sailors etc etc.

The director of the theatre and the author compete with each other in adjusting themselves with the changing circumstances. Both of them are full of mystical fear before the third one – Savva Lukich, because it is he, who can either permit or prohibit their play.

For obtaining this permission they are ready to do anything: they can twist the play as Savva Lukich likes; having just distributed the roles, are ready for grand rehearsal, as Savva Lukich is leaving for Crimea. And Savva Lukich, in an ugly bureaucratic way decides the fates of such millions of Panfilovichs and Dymogatskiis. He raises all sorts of nonsensical objections and expects the director and the author to change the play according to his whims, without realising that he being instrumental in deforming the ideals of Revolution.

In our era – the era of Cultural Revolution, the main task is to expose the false of such approaches to arts and culture. Our theatre is following this line of action by staging the Crimson Island. (p. 576-577)

The Crimson Island also reflects the fate of the dramatist. Those crucial moments which M.Bulgakov went through during the grand rehearsal of his earlier plays Days of Turbins and Zoya’s Flat find reflection in this play.

No matter how much Bulgakov seems different from Dymogatskii, no matter how much he laughed at ‘Mr. Jules Verne’ and his play, the sufferings, of the author, broken by ban on his play were not only understood by him, but they were too near to his heart. The last act of the play could be termed as “tragedy of the author” of a prohibited play. The general line of the play suddenly gets disrupted and jumps to tragic tones. Jules Verne’s outburst symbolises the protest against controls on ‘freedom of creation’.

Having decided to stage the drama in the theatre, Tairov also seems to have joined Bulgakov in his demand for freedom of creation.

******

Note: All quotes are taken from M.A.Bulgakov: Plays of the 20’s, Leningrad, 1989.

Cut & Paste!

Transplanting
Cutting and pasting,
That is the order of the day!

We transplant beautiful carpet grass,
We paste pitchers on plants,
Creating, thus, pitcher plants,
We cut the rights
And freedom
Of one and all
And paste our will
On the blank space
Created by someone's fall.

Will this land accept the carpets of grass?
Will the scorching heat
Spare the plastic pots?
Will the hot summer
And perennial lack of water
Spare these cuts and pastes?
Will the erratic power supply
Not spoil the system at all?

Let the grass grow on its own,
Let us just trim it
And water it!
Let there be beautiful
Shandeliers
If at all we want
Aesthetic beauty!

Hurry will spoil things
Arrogance will kill the souls
Tapes on lips
Won't serve any purpose!

Well, everything has an end!
We shall wait
For the real spring,
And chirping of birds,
And fountains of water
And a calm and cool
Evening
To relax
And get rid of
Stress and tension!