I will talk about the differences between the two editions in more detail below, and now about the encyclopedia itself. It is clear that it is entirely devoted to one thing - the talent of Mikhail Afanasyevich. But it is impossible to put into it all the information that is currently known about the writer (even in the "most complete edition"), so encyclopedic articles tell us about the most significant, in the opinion of its author and compiler, events, materials, people and characters related to to Bulgakov. There are separate articles about the thinkers who influenced the writer (Kant, Nietzsche, Berdyaev, Shestov, Florensky) and writers (Meyrink, Senkevich), about his family members (wives, parents, brothers) and friends, about the prototypes of some characters (Slashchev, Petliura) , about the political figures of that time (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin). Almost every literary work of the writer is devoted to a separate article in the encyclopedia, and these are not only novels, short stories, stories, plays; feuilletons, reports and even the libretto of the welcoming performance of the Moscow Art Theater troupe at the fortieth anniversary of the Art Theater were also included here (by the way, this article was not in the first edition of the encyclopedia).
Most of the materials, of course, are devoted to the main and most famous work of Bulgakov - the novel "The Master and Margarita": this is the title article, articles about the main and secondary characters (from Likhodeev to Magarych), about the places of action ("Griboedov's House", "Variety Theater ”, “Bad apartment”) and events (The Great Ball of Satan). In addition, "BE" contains "general problematic articles", as Boris Sokolov indicated them in the preface, devoted to demonology, Freemasonry and Christianity. The appendix gives the actual chronology of the life of the writer "Mikhail Bulgakov: deeds and days, 1891 - 1940", a bibliography (in three parts: 1. Lifetime editions 2. Separate editions of works 3. Literature about life and work) and a name index appearing in " BE "personalities (both real-life and fictional ones). If this is not all that can be learned about Bulgakov today, then there is a lot. Admirers of the writer's talent, even those whose knowledge about him is limited exclusively to the novel The Master and Margarita, will not hurt to have this book in their library.
PS. Now for those who already have the first edition of BE in their library: how is the 2016 version different from it? The number of articles has not changed much, mainly the volume of the book has increased due to the increase in the "specific sheet weight" of the materials themselves. They have become more detailed, there are more quotes and photographs. There is only one abbreviation - the text of the play "Sons of the Mullah", which was published in 1996 as one of the appendix materials, has been removed from the book. The rest is just growth. Added articles about Friedrich Nietzsche, about the sequels to The Master and Margarita (which were already written in our time by other authors), about the feuilleton "The Muse of Revenge" (dedicated to the work of Nikolai Nekrasov, was not published during Bulgakov's lifetime), about the already mentioned festive libretto " Anniversary meeting", a separate article about Bulgakov's language and style. The name index closing the edition was also absent in the BE of 1996.
For the 125th anniversary of Mikhail Bulgakov, the EKSMO publishing house launched a special series, which is called “125 Years of the Master”. About one book from it - " The Master and the Demons of Destiny" - I already wrote, now I will talk about the "Bulgakov Encyclopedia" (hereinafter in the text - "BE"). The author of this book is the same as the previous one, Boris Sokolov. But the encyclopedia itself was published in 2016 not for the first time, and I believe, not for the last time. And although the cover proudly says "The most complete edition", I am sure that in the future it will be even more complete, for example, by Bulgakov's next anniversary. Why would I think so? It’s just that I have the very first and latest edition of “BE” next to me on my bookshelf, and it’s even outwardly visible how much this book has “grown up” (well, still, 592 pages versus 832) over the past twenty years, for the first time it came out published in 1996 by the Lokid publishing house.
I will talk about the differences between the two editions in more detail below, and now about the encyclopedia itself. It is clear that it is entirely devoted to one thing - the talent of Mikhail Afanasyevich. But it is impossible to put into it all the information that is currently known about the writer (even in the "most complete edition"), so encyclopedic articles tell us about the most significant, in the opinion of its author and compiler, events, materials, people and characters related to to Bulgakov. There are separate articles about the thinkers who influenced the writer (Kant, Nietzsche, Berdyaev, Shestov, Florensky) and writers (Meyrink, Senkevich), about his family members (wives, parents, brothers) and friends, about the prototypes of some characters (Slashchev, Petliura) , about the political figures of that time (Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Bukharin). Almost every literary work of the writer is devoted to a separate article in the encyclopedia, and these are not only novels, short stories, stories, plays; feuilletons, reports and even the libretto of the welcoming performance of the Moscow Art Theater troupe at the fortieth anniversary of the Art Theater were also included here (by the way, this article was not in the first edition of the encyclopedia).
Most of the materials, of course, are devoted to the main and most famous work of Bulgakov - the novel "The Master and Margarita": this is the title article, articles about the main and secondary characters (from Likhodeev to Magarych), about the places of action ("Griboedov's House", "Variety Theater ”, “Bad apartment”) and events (The Great Ball of Satan). In addition, "BE" contains "general problematic articles", as Boris Sokolov indicated them in the preface, devoted to demonology, Freemasonry and Christianity. The appendix gives the actual chronology of the life of the writer "Mikhail Bulgakov: deeds and days, 1891 - 1940", a bibliography (in three parts: 1. Lifetime editions 2. Separate editions of works 3. Literature about life and work) and a name index appearing in " BE "personalities (both real-life and fictional ones). If this is not all that can be learned about Bulgakov today, then there is a lot. Admirers of the writer's talent, even those whose knowledge about him is limited exclusively to the novel The Master and Margarita, will not hurt to have this book in their library.
PS. Now for those who already have the first edition of BE in their library: how is the 2016 version different from it? The number of articles has not changed much, mainly the volume of the book has increased due to the increase in the "specific sheet weight" of the materials themselves. They have become more detailed, there are more quotes and photographs. There is only one abbreviation - the text of the play "Sons of the Mullah", which was published in 1996 as one of the appendix materials, has been removed from the book. The rest is just growth. Added articles about Friedrich Nietzsche, about the sequels to The Master and Margarita (which were already written in our time by other authors), about the feuilleton "The Muse of Revenge" (dedicated to the work of Nikolai Nekrasov, was not published during Bulgakov's lifetime), about the already mentioned festive libretto " Anniversary meeting", a separate article about Bulgakov's language and style. The name index closing the edition was also absent in the BE of 1996.
Boris Sokolov
Bulgakov. Encyclopedia.
Lyudmila, Igor and Vadim with love
Preface to the second edition
You are holding the Bulgakov Encyclopedia in your hands. Despite the scientific name - "encyclopedia", it is not too academic and popular as possible (but not to the detriment of the truth and not at the expense of the accuracy of conclusions and estimates). We deliberately set a goal to collect in it the most interesting for the widest public information about the life and work of Bulgakov. At the same time, the encyclopedia does not contain a detailed description of all the feuilletons and reports of the writer, many of which are now of interest only to specialists in Bulgakov studies. There are no articles devoted to all Bulgakov's relatives and friends, all the writers and philosophers who influenced the author of The Master and Margarita (otherwise the volume of the encyclopedia would have to be increased several times). Of the writer's works, we have devoted separate articles to all novels, short stories, plays, dramatizations, screenplays, opera librettos and short stories. Among feuilletons, essays and reports, only the most interesting in terms of content, context, prototypes and allusions were selected. Of Bulgakov's relatives, only parents, wives and siblings received separate articles. Two of the closest friends were singled out, N. N. Lyamin and P. S. Popov. It should be remembered that for any complete presentation of the entire circle of Bulgakov's friends and acquaintances, a separate book would be required, not inferior in volume to this edition.
Bulgakov entered Russian and world literature primarily as the author of The Master and Margarita, which many literary critics and thoughtful readers consider the best novel of the 20th century. Therefore, we devoted separate articles to invented buildings of the novel, such as Griboyedov's House, and to several dozen of the main characters of The Master and Margarita (the main characters of other Bulgakov's works are discussed in articles devoted to the corresponding novel, story, play, etc.). In addition, parallels with the last and most famous Bulgakov's novel, where many of the motives of the writer's work were completed, can be traced in other articles of the encyclopedia. In the selection of articles about writers, philosophers, political and military figures included in the encyclopedia, we were guided by both subjective preferences and the desire to reduce duplication of information. Therefore, in particular, there are no separate articles devoted to Gogol, Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Goethe, Hoffmann, Dostoevsky, Frans, Molière, Cervantes and many others. The listed writers, in connection with their influence on the hero of our encyclopedia, are mentioned in articles about the staging of their works (such as "Dead Souls" and "War and Peace"), about the characters of "The Master and Margarita", the main characters of which are directly related to Goethe's "Faust" ", as well as in a number of others. At the same time, realizing that the reader is eager to see in each article some complete integrity that does not require mandatory reference to other articles of the encyclopedia, we often give the same information from different angles and in contexts, often even repeating individual quotes. In the course of the presentation, the necessary information about the mentioned persons and events is given. Italics in the text are the names of those articles of the encyclopedia, familiarity with which helps to understand the meaning of this one.
In Bulgakov's work, and especially in the novel The Master and Margarita, one can clearly see the writer's interest in the history of Christianity, questions of demonology, and various myths of the past and present. Therefore, the encyclopedia contains general problematic articles: Demonology, Freemasonry and Christianity, where the reflection of the relevant phenomena in Bulgakov's works is considered. And in all the articles that compiled this book, we tried to pay special attention to demonology and mythology, as well as real prototypes and literary sources of Bulgakov's works. Separate articles are devoted to the language and style of Bulgakov and the works of contemporary Russian writers, which are a continuation of The Master and Margarita. True, we have to admit that the successors are far from reaching their great predecessor.
A chronicle of life and work placed at the end of the encyclopedia will help you better navigate Bulgakov's biography, and a detailed bibliography following the chronicle will help you get to know many stories related to Bulgakov better. In addition to the writings of the writer and works dedicated to him, here is the composition of Bulgakov's lifetime collections and a complete list of lifetime publications of his works. In the text of the encyclopedia, given its popular nature, the names of researchers of Bulgakov's life and work are given only in cases of direct quotations from their works.
The encyclopedia does not include articles about several plays ("The Turbine Brothers", "Self-Defence", etc.), known only by name. The texts of these plays have not come down to us.
Let's make a reservation that about Bulgakov's relatives and friends, different sources give conflicting information about many important points in his biography, including dates of birth and death. Metric documents are often either missing or have not yet been published. We will be very grateful to everyone who sends their comments and clarifications to the text of the encyclopedia.
Bulgakov's unique feature, thanks to which the novel "The Master and Margartita" became one of the most popular novels of the 20th century in our country and is loved by readers all over the world, is the ability to speak about complex philosophical problems with the greatest possible simplicity for a literary text. The writer accumulated the experience of both Russian and Western literary, philosophical and demonological traditions in the original images of his works. In the main of them, thanks to a simple but aesthetically impeccable language, several levels of perception easily coexist for different categories of readers. First of all, Bulgakov's writing can be read as entertaining fiction. With some familiarity with the "Aesopian language" of the Soviet era, one can also easily identify the author's ideological position in relation to the communist government and to events in contemporary Russia and in the world. And a much more difficult task is to comprehend Bulgakov's philosophy, regarding the essence of which fierce disputes continue among researchers and readers.
This encyclopedia, like any author's work of this kind, is largely subjective. First of all, we tried to give that interpretation of Bulgakov's works and the events of his biography, which seems to us closest to the truth. By truth, we understand the actual intentions of the writer when working on a work. Naturally, other researchers and readers often prefer alternative readings of the events of Bulgakov's life and work, the images of his works. Such alternative interpretations will always exist. And the author's intentions themselves change in the course of the creative process and turn out to be very elusive. Sometimes the writer cannot unambiguously realize them, not to mention the individual perception of the same images by different readers. The point here is the following. Each truly great literary work has not even hundreds, but thousands and tens of thousands of literary and real sources. If one day it were possible, for example, by some miracle to reveal all the sources of the novel The Master and Margarita, then even the most brilliant mind would not be able to compare them all, since such a task goes far beyond the limits of the possibilities of human thinking. And it is almost impossible to unambiguously prove whether this or that person was the prototype of a literary hero, and this or that book was the source of the image. The same is true of any writer's biography. Many of the facts from it cannot be firmly proven or refuted, since they are not supported by documents or several independent testimonies of contemporaries. Even in the case when the hypotheses do not contradict all the known facts of the writer's biography and the creative history of the work, as a rule, several such interpretation hypotheses compete with each other. Probably, here, other things being equal, it is worth applying the principle of "Occam's razor", named after the famous English philosopher and theologian of the XIV century. William of Ockham, He urged not to unnecessarily increase the number of grounds for conclusions and give preference to those theories that provide the simplest explanation for the maximum of facts. In the same way, one should approach the interpretation of artistic images and facts related to the history of the work and the biography of the writer. However, this principle can by no means be made imperative (mandatory) for all readers. Therefore, for everyone there is and always will be, no matter how many volumes of scientific research appear, their own Pushkin, their own Gogol, their own Bulgakov. .. "Bulgakov's Encyclopedia" is by no means intended to affirm the ultimate truth. Such a truth is hardly entirely comprehensible in relation to artistic creativity and true authorial intentions. We have tried to give all Bulgakov's admirers new food for thought and, at the same time, with the help of some firmly established facts, to dispel a number of myths associated with the name and works of this most popular writer.
I quote "Bulgakov Encyclopedia" B.V. Sokolova (M.: Lokid; Mif, 1998., p. 463 - 467):""Theatrical novel", a novel with the subtitle "Notes of a Dead Man". During Bulgakov's lifetime, it was not finished and was not published... a literary creation dedicated to the theatrical world and remaining in the posthumous notes of the playwright who committed suicide<...>
The beginning of work on "Theatrical Novel" refers to the end of 1929 or the beginning of 1930, after writing the unfinished story "Secret Friend". The events captured in this story served as material for the "Theatrical novel"<...>The plot ... was largely based on Bulgakov's conflict with the chief director of the Art Theater Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky ... about the production of [Bulgakov's play] "The Cabal of the Saints" at the Moscow Art Theater and the subsequent removal of the play by the theater after a condemning article in the Pravda newspaper<...>
"Notes of a Dead Man" broke off at an unfinished phrase... work on the story "To a Secret Friend" also stopped at an unfinished phrase. And it turned out that both of these phrases largely convey the main ideas of the story and the novel. "To a Secret Friend" ends with an appeal to the author: "Bad novel, Mishun, you (no doubt, further should have followed: you wrote, which, by the way, made the phrase quite complete - [aut. Enc.])...". "The writer cut off the theatrical novel with the words of the author-Maksudov: "And play in such a way that the viewer forgets that the stage is in front of him ..." Note that this phrase is finished in itself. In "Secret Friend" in the center was the sad fate of Bulgakov's first novel "White Guard" It brought the author neither fame, nor money, nor recognition from critics, remained completely unpublished in his homeland, and in this regard, in retrospect, Bulgakov should have been evaluated really as "bad" (although the writer's artistic quality was not entirely satisfactory) So the unflattering assessment by a poet unfriendly to the author made some sense at the end of the unfinished text.In "Theatrical Novel" Bulgakov acts as an opponent of the system of K.S. Stanislavsky and it is no coincidence that he calls the corresponding hero Ivan Vasilyevich, by analogy with the first Russian Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible ... emphasizing the despotism of the founder of the Art Theater in relation to the actors (and even to the playwright).At the end of the Theatrical Novel, Maksudov sets out the results of his test of the theory of Ivan Vasilievich (in fact, Stanislavsky), according to which any actor, through special exercises, "could receive the gift of reincarnation" and really make the audience forget that before them is not life, but the theater<...>At the rehearsal depicted in the Theatrical Novel, the author becomes convinced that Ivan Vasilievich's theory is inapplicable<...>Bulgakov knew well that acting gift - from God. And he gave this understanding to Maksudov, in whose burning brain, after convulsive cries: "I'm new ... I'm new! I'm inevitable, I've come!" the idea is being strengthened that Lyudmila Silvestrovna Pryakhina, waving a lace handkerchief (Moscow Art Theater prima. - V.R.), cannot play<...>The writer in Theatrical Novel argues with the idea that one can "act in such a way that the viewer forgets that there is a stage in front of him", and at the same time makes Maksudov, crossing the threshold of the Theater, not remember that before him is just an illusion of reality<...>
The "Theatrical Novel" reproduced many of the dramatic and comic moments of the rehearsals at the Moscow Art Theater "The Cabal of the Saints", however, the Days of the Turbins served as the prototype for Maksudov's play "Black Snow". It is curious that the main character of Maksudov's play bears the surname Bakhtin. This may indicate Bulgakov's acquaintance with the only book published by that time by the famous literary critic M.M. Bakhtin ... "Problems of Dostoevsky's Creativity" (1928), and the quotation from "Black Snow" cited in "Theatrical Novel" (the moment of the hero's suicide. - V.R.) ... can be considered as an illustration of Bakhtin's idea of the dialogic nature of being .. Not only is Alexey Turbin's deathbed dialogue with Nikolka reproduced here in a concentrated manner, but also Khludov's dialogue with Krapilin's shadow from The Run, and the eternal dispute that Pontius Pilate has in his sleep with Yeshua Ha-Notsri in The Master and Margarita. The fact that in Black Snow Bakhtin predicts the imminent death of his interlocutor and the continuation of some important dialogue in the other world does not bother Ivan Vasilievich, who has become a prisoner of his own system and is only concerned with how to stage the scene of suicide more effectively ... Bulgakov and M.M. Bakhtin was not personally acquainted, but Bakhtin's later theories of the menippea as a kind of universal genre and the principle of "carnivalization of reality" are perfectly applicable to both Theatrical Novel and The Master and Margarita. If for Stanislavsky (and for Ivan Vasilievich) the theater is a temple and even a temple-workshop, and he sees himself in this temple as a kind of supreme deity, then for Bulgakov (and Maksudov), the theater is not only a temple and a workshop, but also a farce. The tragicomic inside the theatrical kitchen is captured in the Theatrical Novel. It demonstrates the intrigues and struggle of vanities, but at the same time - the miracle of the birth of a new performance<...>
In Theatrical Novel, two directors of the Independent Theater Ivan Vasilyevich and Aristarkh Platonovich (the latter, like V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, most often stays abroad), “quarreled in 1885 and have not met since then, not they even talk to each other on the phone," Bulgakov did not forgive both leaders of the Moscow Art Theater for refusing to fight for "The Cabal of the Hypocrites" after a furious article in Pravda in March 1936, and he did not forget many years of ordeal with rehearsals of the play. Therefore, "Tetralny Romance" contains rather evil caricatures of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko, as well as many other employees of the Art Theater.
The encyclopedic article ends with a story about how, according to the writer's widow and according to the notes of V.Ya. Lakshina, Bulgakov was about to finish the novel. Maksudov, after many more twists and turns with the play, after the premiere, which caused offensive publications in the press, returns to his native Kiev and rushes into the Dnieper from the Chain Bridge, which by that time had long since disappeared. In other words, he performs a deliberately impossible action, emphasizing the fantastic nature of everything that happens in the novel.
The novel, however, was not completed, which in no way deprives it of its peculiar completeness - precisely in this very incompleteness. And is it possible to finish anything at all in the post-revolutionary Russian world turned upside down, moreover, depicted in the distorting mirror of the Independent Theater? ..
There is probably no need to emphasize the timeliness of Bulgakov's works in ours today. It has already been announced by the very appearance on the screens of a new television performance, carried out by the Kultura channel and - specifically - by two directors and screenwriters, Oleg Babitsky and Yuri Goldin.
The overall impression of the film adaptation is certainly good. The authors managed without much loss (at least in my opinion) to ram the voluminous text into a 110-minute television version, they were able - with the help of poor theatrical scenery - to embody at the same time the tragic farce, completely fantastic and, moreover, absolutely real Soviet and Bulgakov's world, populating it with characters, mostly not causing a negative reaction from your reviewer, a longtime reader and admirer of M.A. Bulgakov.
Just as good, and sometimes remarkable, seemed to me some particulars. For example, a brilliant episode with the dressing up of an actor as a director, perfectly played by Alexander Semchev, who in the blink of an eye reincarnated as Aristarkh Platonovich, so that the appearance of the second person of Janus not only causes a silent scene among those present in the frame, but also delights those sitting in front of the screen. Or the penultimate scene of the discussion of the play by the "old men" of Nezavisimy, arranged by Ivan Vasilievich, arranged by Babitsky and Goldin in the spirit of the final - dumb - scene of Gogol's "Inspector General", despite the fact that the gentlemen mastodons are by no means silent, but when speaking - they are mute, because there is nothing for them to say , except for lies, which, moreover, they themselves do not want to say: they like a play written not about them and not for them ... not a novel, it, of course, cannot be left without a finale), where Maksudov is put into the coffin by Ivan Vasilievich, AS LIKE rehearsing a scene in a play, which the theatrical god, having outlived himself, puts into the coffin together with the author.
There are many such wonderful details. What is worth only the dialogue between Maksudov and Bombardov, staged in the scenery of the theatrical backrooms - a uniform post-apocalyptic dungeon, symbolizing both our eternal devastation and post-revolutionary devastation, but also no less referring to Kafikan nightmares.
In a word, Babitsky and Goldin's "Theatrical Romance" dramaturgically, directing, and in terms of musical accompaniment (the choice of music is excellent) adequately transfers Bulgakov's unfinished novel to the television screen. Acting work for the most part is very convincing, and sometimes just brilliant. I already spoke about Semchev above, Sukhorukov is also wonderful in the role of a theater administrator, a sort of Aribald Archibaldovich from "The Master ...", the episode played by Martsevich is charming, dry and completely accurate - typical, like the devil - the character performed by Chindyaikin, good, though and quite expected, and all, perhaps, actresses. But the best, the best of all, is Maxim Sukhanov, who played both Bombardov and - I'm not afraid to say brilliantly - Ivan Vasilyevich, who played in such a way that it is almost impossible to guess the same face under two different (but, in essence, completely identical) masks. Oh, what Stanislavsky turned out to be - a crowned handsome crocodile, this must be seen!
I don't want to end up with a fly in the ointment, but how can we do without it here, in the inescapable Bulgakov region, where they always "want the best, but it turns out ..."? It is hardly worth criticizing Igor Larin, who did not draw the role of Maksudov, who, after all, is both a demiurge, and a small person, and a winner, and a suffering hero, and a narrator and performer all rolled into one. The role is too complicated, least of all dramaturgically spelled out (as it always happens with positive heroes), and how, again, you write it, Bulgakov would be needed here ... Larin came out, physiognomically, of course, made similar to Bulgakov, without Bulgakov's brilliance, without his ingenious human and artistic escapades, - it turned out sadly, doomedly: "Notes of the Dead", and not "Theatrical Romance". It turned out just as mournfully with Zolotukhin. Vitorgan looks somewhat better, who has nowhere to turn around in the role (and Martsevich has where? But he turned around!), He should play Woland ... Which, it seems, he is trying to do in the 10-minute space of the role of the financial director of the theater allotted to him. But the most boring thing of all (and most importantly - it is not clear why ... but what is there for you to understand, reviewer? ..), naturally, it turned out for the title character, narrator, athlete, student, minister Shvydkoy. And who the hell sent him to these galleys would have been better written in the credits. But indeed: "... but it turned out as always." Indeed, there is something in Chernomyrdin's maxims from Mikhail Afanasyevich!
Well, sir - so that "but, but, without self-mutilation" - I conclude: if you missed the premiere on September 15 at 23-05 locally (simultaneously on "Culture" and NTK), be sure to watch the replay. I hope it will be like that, tea, not Kara's "Master and Margarita" (there is nothing to punish for?), and the current minister is again on the screen, in nature ...
Review: V. Raspopin
http://kino.websib.ru/article.htm?no=1003
