There is much more in common between Stalin and Bulgakov than it seems at first glance. Bulgakov's hero is a superman striving for absolute knowledge, which gives superhuman power, for the sake of which it is not a pity to sacrifice the whole world. "Ordinary" / "ordinary" people with their "ordinary" life for Bulgakov are dust, meaningless garbage, described with undisguised disgust and evil humor in any of his works. Stalin, as close as possible to the absolute of power, could not but arouse Bulgakov's sincere deep admiration. The principle "they cut down the forest - the chips fly", which Stalin was guided by in his policy, was elevated by Bulgakov to a philosophical absolute in his works.

For a writer, philosopher and mystic, who believes that he has hidden knowledge about the world, accessible only to the initiates, like Bulgakov, it is quite natural to want to become close to the ruler, share his innermost knowledge with him, enlighten and guide him.

It is quite plausible that in the dialogue between Pontius Pilate and Yeshua, Bulgakov reflected (among other things) his relationship with Stalin and especially his innermost dreams about how he wanted to see these relations ideally. Bulgakov saw himself as an adviser to an enlightened tyrant and was ready to offer his services to Stalin. In one of his letters, Bulgakov wrote to Stalin: “But, finishing the letter, I want to tell you, Iosif Vissarionovich, that my writing dream is to be called to you personally".

And this is what Yeshua says to Pilate: “I would advise you, hegemon, to leave the palace for a while and take a walk somewhere in the vicinity, well, at least in the gardens on the Mount of Olives. A thunderstorm will begin, - the prisoner turned, squinted at the sun, - later, towards evening. A walk would be of great benefit to you, and I would gladly accompany you. Some new thoughts have occurred to me which I think you might find interesting, and I would gladly share them with you, especially since you give the impression of a very intelligent person.

Alas, the union did not take place, since Stalin was not interested in Bulgakov either as a writer or as a partner in a philosophical dialogue. Stalin in this matter was strikingly short-sighted. In historical memory, such a union, of course, would significantly improve his image. A truly intelligent ruler wants glory not only during his lifetime, but also centuries after death, like Octavian, Trajan, or Queen Tamara. But Stalin did not understand that Bulgakov was the greatest writer alive during his reign and that his works would live on for centuries. Unlike the works of many mediocrities treated kindly by him.

Of course, Stalin's big mistake was that he did not understand and appreciate these ideas of Bulgakov. All sorts of court sycophants “Mikhalkovs” sang it, but who cares now, who will now read them? But if Bulgakov captured it, that would be yes. But alas, Stalin was not interested in Bulgakov.

Clever rulers always care about what image of them will be created in culture and will, accordingly, live for centuries. A good example in this sense is Octavian Augustus, who contributed to the flourishing of Roman culture, patronized poets and they did not forget to remember him with a kind word. The Roman state has long since disappeared, Octavian’s political and military victories are mostly occupied by historians, but all educated mankind remembers the golden age of Roman literature that fell on his reign (Titus Livius, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, etc.). Trajan acted similarly, during whose reign Tacitus and Pliny the Younger flourished. Queen Tamara understood the significance of Rustaveli's work, which glorified her for centuries. One can only regret that Stalin did not understand the significance of Bulgakov.

Although ... Who knows, maybe just now Bulgakov and Stalin are walking along the lunar road, talking about something with fervor, arguing, wanting to agree on something ...

UPD. In the comments to this post on Facebook, they recalled Stalin's answer to Bil-Belotserkovsky, his love for the play "Days of the Turbins", help with getting a job at the Moscow Art Theater. However, the characterization of Bulgakov's work, which Stalin gave in the aforementioned answer ("In the absence of fish ... fish"), it is difficult to consider this a proper assessment of Bulgakov's work. Indeed, one cannot say that Stalin did not appreciate Bulgakov at all, but it is quite possible to say that he clearly did not appreciate him enough. Stalin never invited Bulgakov to a meeting, not to mention, as Bulgakov dreamed of, making him his confidant. Perhaps Stalin was simply afraid that his friendship with Bulgakov would be "misunderstood", that is, in essence, he acted like Bulgakov's Pontius Pilate did with Yeshua. Perhaps Stalin understood everything and simply did not want to enter into a conversation with Bulgakov on the lunar road, because. accustomed to giving orders, he simply no longer wanted an equal partner (and Bulgakov offered him exactly a conversation of equals). In general, there can be many explanations, but be that as it may, Bulgakov's dream of the union of the bearer of the absolute Knowledge and the bearer of the absolute Power did not come true. And it did not take place precisely because of Stalin's unwillingness.

Exactly 73 years ago, on March 10, 1940, at 4:39 pm, Mikhail Bulgakov died. And almost immediately a call came from Stalin's secretariat in his apartment:
- Is it true that the writer Bulgakov died?
- Yes, he died.
And they hung up on the other end of the wire.
They had an amazing relationship, Stalin had with Bulgakov ...

During his lifetime, Bulgakov became famous for several banned plays and one staged in the country's first theater, the Artistic Theater. The Days of the Turbins was probably Stalin's favorite play: he attended this performance about 20 times. At the same time, the permission to stage The Days of the Turbins did not apply to any theater, except for the Moscow Art Theater.

And Stalin and Bulgakov never met in person, even though Stalin somehow promised such a meeting. In the early 1930s Bulgakov's material, literary and social position became critical. And on March 28, 1930, he addressed the Government of the USSR with a letter in which he asked to determine his fate: to provide either the opportunity to work or emigrate.

From a telephone conversation between the leader and the writer on April 18, 1930:
Stalin: We have received your letter. Reading with friends. You will have a favorable answer for it ... Or maybe it's true - you are asking to go abroad? What, we are very tired of you?
Bulgakov (bewildered and not immediately): ... I have been thinking a lot lately - can a Russian writer live outside his homeland. And I don't think it can.
Stalin: You are right. I think so too. Where do you want to work? At the Art Theatre?
Bulgakov: Yes, I would like to. But I talked about it, and they refused me.
Stalin: And you apply there. I think they will agree. We would like to meet and talk to you.
Bulgakov: Yes, yes! Iosif Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you.
Stalin: Yes, we need to find time and meet, by all means. And now I wish you all the best.
“All my life, Mikhail Afanasyevich asked me the same question: Why did Stalin change his mind (to meet him)?”- Elena Sergeevna Bulgakova will write later.

And literally the next day after this telephone conversation, Bulgakov was enrolled as an assistant director at the Moscow Art Theater, and as a director at TRAM (Theatre of Working Youth). The writer's material problems were resolved, and there was hope for staging plays. There were never many good playwrights in the USSR, their fees exceeded the earnings of writers by an order of magnitude, and Bulgakov loved the joys of life.
But alas, "Running", "Zoyka's apartment", "Crimson Island" were not allowed to be staged. They refused to stage the play "Ivan Vasilyevich". The play "The Cabal of the Saints" was banned after seven performances, and in 1936 Bulgakov left the Moscow Art Theater, starting to work at the Bolshoi Theater as a librettist and translator.
And suddenly, on September 9, 1938, representatives of the Moscow Art Theater’s literary department Markov and Vilenkin came to Bulgakov, who had retired from the Art Theater, and asked him to forget old grievances and write a play for their theater for Stalin’s anniversary. In those years, the country was seized with fear, and at such a time, non-party Bulgakov, the author of several banned works, could only decide to order a play for Stalin's 60th birthday. In return, Bulgakov was promised a good apartment, and the “housing issue” always worried the writer.

Bulgakov agreed, and on July 24, 1939, the play "Batum" was completed. Everyone who got acquainted with her praised her (there were no fools to scold the play about Stalin). The main repertoire committee and the leadership of the Moscow Art Theater also greeted what was written with a bang, and the play began to be prepared for staging. On August 14, Bulgakov, his wife and colleagues left for Georgia to collect materials about the performance (Georgian folklore, sketches for scenery, etc.), when suddenly a telegram arrived "The need for a trip has disappeared, return to Moscow."
In Moscow, Bulgakov was told that the play had been read in Stalin's secretariat and told that it was impossible to make Stalin a literary hero and put fictitious words into his mouth. And Stalin himself allegedly said: “All young people are the same. There is no need to put on a play about the young Stalin.” The explanation was strange: in those years, works were printed and performances about the young Stalin were staged without any problems, and here, “The play cannot be staged or published.” At the same time, E.S. Bulgakova wrote that Bulgakov was promised that "the theater will fulfill all its promises, that is, about the apartment, and will pay everything under the contract."
On September 10, 1939, the Bulgakovs went to Leningrad, where Mikhail Afanasyevich felt a sudden loss of vision. Upon his return to Moscow, he was diagnosed with acute hypertensive nephrosclerosis. As a doctor, Bulgakov understood that he was doomed, he fell ill and did not get up. Only morphine saved from unbearable pains, and it was under its influence that the last versions of the novel The Master and Margarita were edited.

What happened? Why did Stalin forbid to stage "Batum"? Yes, everything is very simple - when ordering Bulgakov's play, Stalin expected to see a result equal to The Days of the Turbins. And I saw "hack work", like those works about the leader, with which the theaters and bookstores of the country were inundated. But that artistic weakness of works, which is forgiven for mediocrity, is not forgiven for talent, and Stalin was upset and annoyed. Yes, you yourself will read "Batum", if not laziness, and see for yourself that this is a rather base "hack".

Bulgakov died long and painfully, and on March 10, 1940, his torment ended. The urn with Bulgakov's ashes was buried (not immediately, in March, but three months later) in the Old Part of the Novodevichy Cemetery, not far from the graves of Chekhov and famous actors of the Moscow Art Theater.
At the same time, the Art Theater did not have the right, and would never have dared, to bury the ashes of its not very significant (and, moreover, dismissed) employee in the Mkhatovsky section of the cemetery, intended only for People's Artists of the USSR. Moreover, it was allowed to put a stone on the grave of Bulgakov from the grave of Gogol in the cemetery of the Danilov Monastery.

Only Stalin can order this, paying the last tribute to the author of his favorite play. And many people associate their introduction in 1943 with the impression of the uniform worn by the heroes of the Days of the Turbins. And Stalin's intonation and even some turns from Alexei Turbin's monologue, very much resemble Stalin's speech in his most uncharacteristic address to the people on July 3, 1941: "Brothers and sisters! ..".

On March 4, 1940, Elena Sergeevna recorded in her diary one of the last statements of Mikhail Afanasyevich: “I wanted to live in my corner… I did no harm to anyone…”. Let's not blame Bulgakov for this, don't we all want the same thing?
And Woland's words addressed to Margarita: “Never ask for anything! Never and nothing, and especially for those who are stronger than you. They themselves will offer and give everything themselves ”- these are beautiful words that, alas, have nothing in common with real life in a totalitarian state. Boris Akunin can afford not to ask Putin for anything, and Russian Booker Prize winner Mikhail Shishkin can refuse to represent the Russian Federation at the American book fair BookExpo America 2013, and he will get nothing for it.
But it is easy for a writer to be bold when he lives not in the totalitarian USSR, but in the light autocracy of the Russian Federation. Bulgakov could not afford this ...

I found this aphorism on one of the procurement forums ... and in the best possible way it reflects the whole essence of work in the contract system. I have been in procurement for about 7 years, but situations still arise that baffle me. And no matter how many years you have worked in the field of procurement, you will always make mistakes and something Read more about Who is connected with the state order, he does not laugh in the circus ...[…]

REGULATION IN THE SPHERE OF PROCUREMENT

Today I want to talk to you about rationing in the field of procurement. Maybe someone still hasn’t figured it out or just recently in procurement and has no idea what it is and what it is eaten with, then the article will be useful to you. I remember when at the end of 2015 it was time to develop legal acts in the field of Read more about PURCHASING REGULATIONS[…]

Amendments were made to Federal Law No. 44-FZ dated April 5, 2013

Federal Laws No. 475-FZ of December 29, 2017, No. 503-FZ of December 31, 2017, No. 504-FZ of December 31, 2017, and No. 506-FZ of December 31, 2017 amended Federal Law No. 44-FZ of April 5, 2013 in terms of: - the procedure for procurement from a single supplier (contractor, performer) (paragraphs 8, 43, 53, 54 of part 1 of article 93 of Law No. 44-FZ); – procedure for review by regulatory authorities Read more[…]

Question: On the establishment of penalties (fines, penalties) for violation by the customer of obligations under a contract with a single supplier (contractor, performer).

Answer: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION LETTER No. OG-D28-1543 of February 8, 2017 procurement of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs” (hereinafter referred to as the Law No. Read more aboutQuestion: On the establishment of penalties (fines, penalties) for violation by the customer of obligations under the contract with a single supplier (contractor, performer).[…]

Question: About changing the price of a contract concluded with a single supplier (contractor, performer) for the purchase of goods (work, services) in the amount of less than 100 thousand rubles.

Answer: MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION LETTER dated June 21, 2017 N 24-05-08 / 38833 The Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, having considered the appeal on the application of the provisions of the Federal Law of 05.04.2013 N 44-FZ “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods , works, services to ensure state and municipal needs” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the contract system), reports the following. In accordance with Read more about Question: About changing the price of a contract concluded with a single supplier (contractor, performer) for the purchase of goods (work, services) in the amount of less than 100 thousand rubles.[…]

2018: REVIEW OF CHANGES IN PROCUREMENT UNDER LAWS No. 44-FZ AND No. 223-FZ

Procurement under Law No. 44-FZ: key changes effective from January 1, 2018 New rules on the ban on the admission of foreign software will come into force The ban will not apply to software from the EAEU member states. To do this, it must be included in a special register, which will appear in addition to the existing one. If at least in Read more about 2018: REVIEW OF CHANGES IN PROCUREMENT UNDER LAWS No. 44-FZ AND No. 223-FZ[…]

Schedules for 2018. Getting ready for the new financial year!

In continuation of the topic, today we will talk about plans-schedules for 2018. In the previous article, we “posted” the procurement plan for 2018. Now we will "form and place" the schedule. Schedule plans contain a list of purchases of goods, works, services to meet state and municipal needs for the financial year and are the basis for procurement. Schedules are formed by customers in Read more about Schedules for 2018. Getting ready for the new financial year![…]

Procurement plans for 2018. Getting ready for the new financial year!

The New Year is just around the corner and it's time to start creating procurement plans and schedules for 2018. So today I want to talk about just that! Maybe this article will be useful for someone! PURCHASE PLAN Procurement plans are formed for a period corresponding to the term of the law on the budget for the next financial year and planning period. For example, we have a budget

ABOUT how Bulgakov talked on the phone with Stalin there is information in many memoirs ...
Before that, Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, dejected by the fact that he was not put anywhere and was not hired by the Art Theater, wrote a letter to Stalin asking him to be allowed to leave for the West. The writer characterized his situation with the words "now I am destroyed", "my things are hopeless", "the inability to write is tantamount to being buried alive for me." Close friends knew about this difficult step of the disgraced writer.

And so they decided to play a prank on him ... his friend and writer Olesha called him at home. Bulgakov answered the phone himself. Olesha told him with a Georgian accent: "Now Comrade Stalin will speak to you." However, Bulgakov recognized Olesha and sent him to hell. Then the phone rang again...

Bulgakov goes to the telephone and hears the same phrase, but without an accent: "Comrade Bulgakov? Now Comrade Stalin will speak to you." Bulgakov, thinking that his friends were playing tricks on him again, cursed and hung up.

But they called him again. In great annoyance, he picked up the receiver and heard:

Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov
- Yes Yes...
- Now Comrade Stalin will talk to you.
- What? Stalin? Stalin?

The writer did not have time to say anything, when he heard a well-known voice:

I apologize, Comrade Bulgakov, that I could not answer your letter quickly, but I am very busy...

The embarrassed writer began to answer questions, although he still did not believe that he was talking to Stalin ... just in case.

We have received your letter. Reading with friends. You will have a favorable answer to it ... Or maybe it's true - you are asking to go abroad? What, we are very tired of you?

Bulgakov did not expect such a question so much that he was confused and did not immediately answer.

I have been thinking a lot lately whether a Russian writer can live outside his homeland. And I don't think it can.

You're right. I think so too. Where do you want to work? At the Art Theatre?

Yes, I would like to. But I talked about it, and they refused me.

And you apply there. I think they will agree. We would like to meet and talk to you.

Yes Yes! Iosif Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you.

We need to find time and meet, of course. And now I wish you all the best...

Bulgakov was discouraged and still was not completely sure that he was talking to Comrade Stalin himself. Therefore, after the conversation, he called back to the Kremlin, where he was confirmed the authenticity of the call with the leader of the peoples ...

On April 19, 1930, Bulgakov was enrolled as an assistant director at the Moscow Art Theater. His meeting with Stalin, on which they agreed, did not take place. Such episodes also testify to the attitude of the latter towards the writer. According to the Vakhtangov artist O. Leonidov, “Stalin was twice at Zoya’s apartment” (Bulgakov’s play). He said: good play! I don’t understand, I don’t understand at all why it is either allowed or banned, I don’t see anything wrong.” In February 1932, Stalin watched a production of the play by A.N. Afinogenov "Fear", which he did not like. “... In a conversation with representatives of the theater, he remarked: “Here you have a good play “Days of the Turbins” - why is it not running?” He was embarrassedly told that it was forbidden. “Nonsense,” he objected, “a good play, it must be staged, stage it.” And within ten days, an order was given to restore the production ... "

(C) Memoirs of Natalia Arskaya Writer's House, chapter 5. "Writer's House", Bulgakov M. Collected Works: In 10 vols. T. 10. M., 2000. S. 260-261.

However, it cannot be said that everything went smoothly for Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov in the mid-1920s. The story "Fatal Eggs" was published. But, let's say, "The Heart of a Dog" - a story that we all know well, probably saw the film based on it, was not passed by the censors.

In 1926 Bulgakov's apartment was searched by the OGPU. Later, Mikhail Afanasyevich was summoned to the Lubyanka. They took away his diary, which he kept, his manuscripts. He was given a rather tough interrogation, during which his political views were clarified. And now the protocol of this interrogation has been published, and we know how Bulgakov answered. And he answered directly, honestly, hiding nothing. He said that he did not like the revolution, that during the civil war he was on the side of the whites, that he looked at historical events with horror. Maybe this directness, in fact, saved him.

One way or another, it seems to me, then, in the mid-1920s, Bulgakov had such a picture of the world in his head - you can feel it in Fatal Eggs, and maybe a little in Heart of a Dog - which is the worst thing: revolution , devastation, civil war, blood, violence - all this is gone, and then history will develop evolutionarily. It will move towards a return to the usual, natural norms and laws of being. It will move towards the affirmation of home, family, eternal human values. It seems to me that it seemed to him that in this world he would find his place. In this world, he will work as a prose writer, playwright.

Bulgakov did not clash with the Soviet authorities. He didn't love her, that's true. But he well understood that she had come in earnest and for a long time, and he well understood that by nature he was not a fighter, not an oppositionist, not a dissident (to use a later word). He simply wanted to build his relations with the Soviet government in such a way that, while recognizing its independence, he expected that it would recognize his independence. Respecting her law, he assumed that she would respect his inner laws and allow him to write what he wanted, how he wanted, how he thought. It would seem that his theatrical experiences testified that this would continue to develop. Yes, let him rage, let him rage as much as he likes, criticism, but the dog barks - the caravan moves on.

However, in 1928-1929, this whole benevolent picture began to gradually collapse. It so happened that in 1928, Bulgakov offered the Moscow Art Theater his new play, which he probably loved more than all the previous ones and in which he put the most of his soul. The play, which was called "Running". It was such an alternate history of his own life. It seems to me that this was an attempt to look at another version of one's fate - such a "garden of forking paths". What would happen if there, in Batum, he turned not to the right, to the north - to Moscow, but to the left - to Turkey, Constantinople, and then moved to Europe. How would he live among Russian emigrants. Would he succeed as a writer? As a person of Russian abroad? Most likely, he gave a negative answer to this, but he wanted to explore it as an artist.

The play was excellent, lyrical, very innovative, very melodic, musical - a brilliant play. The theater management liked her very much. I really liked Gorky, who was a weighty person. But Bulgakov's enemies turned out to be more cunning. They understood a very important thing: the play must be shot down, like an airplane, on takeoff. “Days of the Turbins” could not be banned because when they were clinging to them, the theater said: “Excuse me, we have invested so much money in this play, it brings us such capital that have pity on us, leave it to us. And then they decided to ban "Running" until the costumes, scenery were made, the roles were played. And the play was banned. This was a terrible blow for Bulgakov and, in general, a signal that everything is very difficult in this Soviet kingdom.

But more than that, the unstaged "Running" dragged along those three plays that were on the Moscow stages and provided Bulgakov with financial well-being, self-confidence and the position of a playwright. In 1929, the play "Days of the Turbins" was banned, followed by the closing of "Zoyka's apartment", then the "Crimson Island" was sunk. I must say that for a long time the reason why the government changed so much in relation to Bulgakov was not very clear.

The fact is that Bulgakov, of course, had a patron. Stalin himself was his patron. It is known that Stalin often went to the theater, he was very fond of the Moscow Art Theater, he was very fond of classical art. And Stalin was impressed by Bulgakov's heroes. Yes, they were enemies, but honest enemies. Stalin, like an Oriental, was afraid of poison in a glass and a dagger in the back. The heroes of the play "Days of the Turbins" would never go to such deceit and meanness. They were ready only for open battle. Stalin respected such enemies. And suddenly something happened: Stalin refuses Bulgakov.

Moreover, at the very end of 1928, Stalin received a letter from a group of Soviet playwrights, headed by a certain Bill-Belotserkovsky, who directly posed the question to the leader: “Why is there an openly counter-revolutionary play on the stage of the best Soviet theater? Why do you, Iosif Vissarionovich, admit the existence of such ugly facts, but “red” plays, plays by good Soviet playwrights, are not shown in this theater? What did Stalin say to Bill-Belotserkovsky? “You will learn, good comrade, to write like Comrade Bulgakov, then we will talk with you.” “And in Bulgakov’s play,” Koba added, “in fact, there is nothing counter-revolutionary. Even if Bulgakov sympathizes with his heroes, this does not mean that they are strong and right. Objectively, the Bolsheviks turned out to be strong and right, as history has shown. Willingly or unwittingly, Bulgakov turned out to be an ally of Stalin.