When in 1820 Pushkin easily got off with an official transfer to Chisinau for, frankly, insulting epigrams addressed to the tsar, the poet was not too scared. And when in 1826 Nikolai invited him to talk to him, Alexander Sergeevich was not too shocked. Just think, God's anointed ...
In the Soviet hierarchy, Stalin was no longer considered some kind of anointed, but a god himself since the late 1920s. Therefore, Stalin's famous telephone calls to Bulgakov and Pasternak are considered out of the ordinary literary events.
Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov, an openly non-Soviet writer, nevertheless had a high opinion of himself and considered it normal that his plays Days of the Turbins, Running, and Zoykina's apartment were staged in the best theaters in the country. When Bulgakov began to be dragged to the OGPU, the productions were closed, he dared to do something unusual.
Perhaps Bulgakov hoped to improve his social and financial situation, having entered the highest literary circle of those close to the throne, like Gorky or Sholokhov. Perhaps he hoped for a special treatment of Stalin, because he knew that the leader liked the Days of the Turbins. Initially, he wrote several letters to the highest literary and party authorities with a request to give him the opportunity to work or send him abroad. At the beginning of 1930 - the same thing, only in a letter to Stalin, as chairman of the government. And on April 18, 1930, Stalin called Bulgakov and their brief telephone conversation, where Stalin said two sunken into the writer's soul "Are you so tired of us?" and “I think they will agree” (about the writer's desire to work at the Moscow Art Theater).
They did not contact anymore. Bulgakov lived for another 10 years not in chocolate, but also not in disgrace, remaining a recognized, published writer and stage playwright. The most interesting consequence of the conversation was that Bulgakov, a master of oral storytelling, boldly began to tell ironic tales about himself and Stalin in household companies over a glass. They are preserved in the records of his wife E.S. Bulgakova and Konstantin Paustovsky.
For example, the story of how Stalin urgently summoned Bulgakov to the Kremlin to talk. A motorcyclist came for the writer. Bulgakov, out of confusion, forgot to put on his shoes and appeared before the leader and his usual barefoot. Stalin declares: “My writer should not walk with his shoes on. Berry, take off your boots! " Taking off their shoes, Yagoda, Voroshilov, Mikoyan faint from fear. Their shoes are sometimes small and sometimes large. Only Molotov's boots fit Bulgakov.
Or a story about how Stalin is bored, because "the best friend Misha Bulgakov has gone to rest." He gathers those close to him to go to the opera, to listen to Shostakovich's new opera Lady Macbeth Mtsensk district". And then he offers to discuss the piece he listened to, speaks first and calls the opera a confusion and cacophony. Zhdanov, Voroshilov, Molotov warmly support the expressed opinion, using the terms "confusion" and "cacophony". Only the simpleton Budyonny offers to cut with a sword for such music. The famous 1936 article "Sumyur instead of music" in Pravda was widely discussed at that time.
Bulgakov knew that in the companies where he told this, there must have been informers. He did not offend the leader, as Osip Mandelstam did in his famous poem, but he admitted that the leader might not like it. But nothing happened. Bulgakov appropriated to himself the right to make fun of the Soviet god "in the light" and maybe Stalin appreciated this.
On March 10, 1940, Bulgakov's apartment received a second call from Stalin's secretariat.
- And what, comrade Bulgakov died?
- Yes, he died.
They hung up at the Kremlin end.

Letter to the Government of the USSR Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov (Moscow, Pirogovskaya, 35-a, apt. 6) I am addressing the Government of the USSR with the following letter:

1

After all my works were banned, voices began to be heard among many of the citizens for whom I was known as a writer, giving me the same advice. To compose a "communist play" (I quote quotations in quotation marks), and in addition, to apply to the Government of the USSR with a letter of repentance, containing a rejection of my previous views expressed by me in literary works and assurances that from now on I will work as a fellow-traveler writer devoted to the idea of ​​communism. Purpose: to be saved from persecution, poverty and inevitable death in the final. I did not take this advice. It is unlikely that I would have been able to appear before the Government of the USSR in a favorable light, having written a deceitful letter, which is an untidy and, moreover, naive political curbet. I did not even try to compose a communist play, knowing in advance that such a play would not come out. The desire that has ripened in me to end my writer's torment makes me turn to the Government of the USSR with a truthful letter.

2

After analyzing my scrapbooks, I found 301 reviews about me in the USSR press for ten years of my literary work. Of these: commendable - there were 3, hostile and abusive - 298. The last 298 are a mirror image of my life as a writer. The hero of my play "Days of the Turbins" Alexei Turbin was called "a son of a bitch" in print, and the author of the play was recommended as "obsessed with dog old age." They wrote about me as a "literary janitor" picking up scraps after "a dozen guests vomited." They wrote this: "... Mishka Bulgakov, my godfather, too, excuse the expression, writer, fumbles in the stale garbage ... What is this, I ask, brother, you have a mug ... I am a delicate person, take it with a pelvis on the back of the head ... To the man in the street, we are without the Turbins, sort of like a bra for a dog needlessly ... Found, son of a bitch. Found Turbin, so that he has no fees, no success ... "(" Life of Art ", N44-1927) ... They wrote "about Bulgakov, who was what he was, and will remain, a new bourgeois spawn, splashing poisonous but impotent saliva on the working class and its communist ideals" ("Komsomolskaya Pravda", 14 / X-1926). It was reported that I liked the "atmosphere of a dog wedding around some red-haired friend's wife" (A. Lunacharsky, Izvestia, 8 / X-1926) and that my play "Days of the Turbins" was "stinking" (transcript of the meeting at Agitprop May 1927), and so on, and so on ... I hasten to inform you that I am not quoting in order to complain about criticism or engage in any controversy. My goal is much more serious. documents in hand that the entire press of the USSR, and with it all the institutions entrusted with the control of the repertoire, during all the years of my literary work, unanimously and with extraordinary fury proved that the works of Mikhail Bulgakov in the USSR cannot exist. And I declare, that the USSR press is absolutely right.

3

The starting point of this letter for me will be my pamphlet "The Crimson Island". All criticism of the USSR, without exception, greeted this play with the statement that it was "mediocre, toothless, wretched" and that it represented "a libel against the revolution." The unanimity was complete, but it was broken suddenly and absolutely amazing. In N22 "Repertoire. Bulletin." (1928) P. Novitsky's review appeared, in which it was reported that "Crimson Island" was "an interesting and witty parody" in which "an ominous shadow of the Grand Inquisitor appears, suppressing artistic creativity, cultivating slavish sycophantic, absurd dramatic clichés that erase the personality of an actor and a writer ", which in" Crimson Island "refers to" an ominous dark force that brings up helots, sycophants and panegyrists ... ". It has been said that "if such a dark force exists, the famed playwright's indignation and wicked wit are justified." It is permissible to ask - where is the truth? What is, after all, "The Crimson Island" - "a wretched, mediocre play" or is it a "witty pamphlet"? The truth lies in Novitsky's review. I do not presume to judge how witty my play is, but I confess that there really is an ominous shadow in the play, and this is the shadow of the Main Repertory Committee. It is he who brings up helots, panegyrists and intimidated "servants." It is he who kills creative thought. He is destroying and destroying Soviet drama. I didn’t whisper these thoughts in the corner. I enclosed them in a dramatic pamphlet and put this pamphlet on the stage. The Soviet press, interceding for the Chief Repertoire Committee, wrote that "Crimson Island" was a libel against the revolution. This is frivolous babble. There is no lampoon about revolution in the play for many reasons, of which, due to lack of space, I will point out one: it is impossible to write a lampoon about revolution, due to its extreme grandeur. The pamphlet is not a libel, and the General Repertoire Committee is not a revolution. But when the German press writes that "Crimson Island" is "the first call for freedom of the press in the USSR" ("Young Guard" No. 1 - 1929 - it writes the truth. I confess it. The fight against censorship, whatever it is no matter what kind of power it existed, it is my duty as a writer, as well as calls for freedom of the press. , he would be like a fish, publicly assuring that it does not need water.

4

This is one of the features of my work, and it alone is quite enough for my works to not exist in the USSR. But with the first line in connection with all the others that appear in my satirical stories: black and mystical colors (I am a mystical writer), which depict the innumerable deformities of our life, the poison that permeates my language, deep skepticism about the revolutionary process taking place in my backward country, and opposing to it the beloved and Great Evolution, and most importantly - the image of the terrible features of my people, those features that long before the revolution caused the deepest suffering of my teacher M.E.Saltykov-Shchedrin. Needless to say, the press of the USSR did not even think to seriously note all this, preoccupied with unconvincing reports that M. Bulgakov's satire contains "slander." Only once, at the beginning of my fame, it was noticed with a touch of arrogant surprise: "M. Bulgakov wants to become a satirist of our era" ("Knigosha", No. 6-1925). Alas, the verb "want" is taken in vain in the present tense. It should be transferred to the pluperfectum: M. Bulgakov became a satirist at the very time when no real (penetrating into the forbidden zones) satire in the USSR is absolutely unthinkable. I was not privileged to express this criminal thought in print. It is expressed with perfect clarity in an article by V. Blum (No. 6 "Lit. Gaz."), And the meaning of this article brilliantly and accurately fits into one formula: every satirist in the USSR encroaches on the Soviet system. Do I think in the USSR?

5

And, finally, my last features in the ruined plays - "Days of the Turbins", "Run" and in the novel " White Guard": a persistent depiction of the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country. In particular, the depiction of an intelligentsia-noble family, by the will of an immutable fate thrown into the camp of the White Guard during the Civil War, in the tradition of War and Peace. Such an image is quite natural for a writer. But such images lead to the fact that their author in the USSR, along with his heroes, receives - in spite of his great efforts to become dispassionate over the reds and whites - a certificate of a White Guard enemy, and having received it, as everyone understands , may consider himself a complete man in the USSR.

6

My literary portrait is complete, and it is also a political portrait. I cannot say what depth of crime can be found in it, but I ask one thing: do not look for anything outside of it. It is performed with utmost conscientiousness.

7

Now I am destroyed. This destruction was greeted by the Soviet public with full joy and called an "achievement." R. Pickel, noting my destruction (Izv., 15 / IX-1929), expressed a liberal thought: "We do not want to say that Bulgakov's name has been deleted from the list of Soviet playwrights." And he reassured the stabbed writer with the words that "we are talking about his past dramatic works." However, life, represented by the General Repertoire Committee, has proved that R. Pickel's liberalism is not based on anything. On March 18, 1930, I received a paper from the General Repertoire Committee, laconically informing that my new play "Cabal of the Sanctifier" ("Molière") was NOT ALLOWED FOR PRESENTATION. I will say briefly: buried under two lines of government paper - work in book depositories, my fantasy, a play that has received countless reviews from qualified theater specialists - a brilliant play. R. Pickel is mistaken. Perished not only my past works, but also the present, and all future ones. And personally, I, with my own hands, threw into the stove a draft of a novel about the devil, a draft of a comedy and the beginning of the second novel, "Theater". All my things are hopeless.

8

I ask the Soviet Government to take into account that I am not a politician, but a writer, and that I gave all my products to the Soviet stage. I ask you to pay attention to the following two reviews about me in the Soviet press. Both of them come from the implacable enemies of my works and are therefore very valuable. In 1925 it was written: "A writer appears who does not even dress in accompanying colors" (L. Averbakh, "Izv.", 20 / IX-1925). And in 1929: "His talent is as obvious as the social reactionary nature of his work" (R. Pickel, "Izv.", 15 / IX-1929). I ask you to take into account that the inability to write for me is tantamount to being buried alive.

9

I ASK THE GOVERNMENT OF THE USSR TO ORDER ME IN URGENT ORDER TO LEAVE

THE LIMITS OF THE USSR ACCEPTED BY MY WIFE LYUBOVA EVGENIEVNA BULGAKOVA.

10

I appeal to the humanity of the Soviet regime and ask me, a writer who cannot be useful in his own country, in his fatherland, to generously release me.

11

If what I have written is not convincing, and I am doomed to life-like silence in the USSR, I ask the Soviet Government to give me a job in my specialty and send me to the theater to work as a full-time director. It is precisely and precisely and emphatically that I ask for a categorical order of secondment, because all my attempts to find a job in the only area where I can be useful to the USSR as an exceptionally qualified specialist have failed completely. My name was made so odious that job offers from my side met with fright, despite the fact that in Moscow a huge number of actors and directors, and with them theater directors, are well aware of my virtuoso knowledge of the stage. I propose to the USSR a completely honest, without any shadow of sabotage, a specialist director and author who undertakes to stage any play in good faith, from Shakespeare's plays to the present day. I am asking to be appointed as a laboratory assistant-director at the 1st Art Theater - in the best school headed by masters KS Stanislavsky and VI Nemirovich-Danchenko. If I am not appointed as a director, I apply for a full-time position of an extra. If you can't be an extra, I'm asking for a job as a stage worker. If this is also impossible, I ask the Soviet Government to do with me as it sees fit, but to do something, because I, a playwright who wrote 5 plays, known in the USSR and abroad, is present at the moment - poverty , street and doom.

Bulgakov and Stalin

STUDIES

Igor ZOLOTUSSKY

Bulgakov and Stalin

Correspondence relations between Bulgakov and Stalin began at the end of the twenties. This is preceded by a search at the apartment of the author of the "White Guard". In 1926, employees of the OGPU came to him and, after a break in the house, they took with them the manuscript of the story "Heart of a Dog" and Bulgakov's diary.

Later - after repeated requests to return what was taken away - the story and the diary will be returned, but the trauma from direct contact with the authorities will remain.

In February 1928, Stalin, in a letter to F. Cohn, called Bulgakov's play "The Run" an "anti-Soviet phenomenon." All his plays will be immediately removed from the stage and his prose will be banned from publication.

Will break out, as Bulgakov himself will say, "catastrophe".

In July of the same year, he sent a letter to Stalin, where he asked to petition the government of the USSR to "expel" him from the country. Argumentation: “not being able to exist any longer, persecuted, knowing that I can neither be published nor put on the USSR, brought to a nervous breakdown”.

Stalin does not answer him.

In March 1930 Bulgakov appeals to the government. He talks about the impossibility of living in a country where he is not printed, not promoted, and even denied a job. "I ask you to order me," he finishes, "to urgently leave the borders of the USSR."

I must say that Bulgakov is playing openly with the authorities. He's not pretending to be a communist sympathizer. He does not even want to recognize himself as a “fellow traveler,” as non-proletarian writers who were ready to cooperate with the regime were called at that time.

He is advised to compose a "communist play", advised to accept and submit - he does not listen to this advice. The curse of intelligence (which is, above all, internal independence) prevents him from performing this, as he puts it, "political curbet".

The letter contains a list of distributions of his works in print. Newspapers and magazines claim that what Bulgakov created "cannot exist in the USSR." "And I declare," he comments on these lines, "that the USSR press is absolutely right."

There is not the slightest hint of readiness to justify himself for his intransigence in his letters “upstairs”. He admits:
a) that he cannot create anything “communist”, b) that satire is satire because the author does not accept what is portrayed, c) that he does not intend to present himself “in a favorable light before the government”.

On April 18, 1930, a bell rings in Bulgakov's apartment. They call from Stalin's secretariat. The leader himself picks up the phone. And then he aimed at the conscience: "Do you want to leave?" Then, apologetically, hypocritically asks: "What, are you really tired of us?"

Bulgakov replies (and this is his conviction) that a Russian writer should live in Russia.

Bulgakov says that he would like to work at the Art Theater, but he is not hired. “And you apply there,” Stalin replies. "It seems to me that they will agree."

And - the final of the dialogue on the phone. Stalin: "We would need to meet, talk with you." Bulgakov: “Yes, yes! Joseph Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you. " Stalin: “Yes, you need to find the time and meet, it is imperative.”

The dictator throws at Bulgakov the idea that a civilized dialogue can be conducted with him, the dictator, that he is finally able to understand the creator.

False thought. False suggestion. But Bulgakov will seek a meeting with Stalin until the end of his days. It will become an obsession with his life.

Stalin, in essence, gives him a job at the Moscow Art Theater. Bulgakov is an assistant director, he is not published, but he writes - including a novel about the devil. And at the same time he constantly returns to a conversation with Stalin, in which, as it seems to him, he did not say what needed to be said. But Stalin no longer calls, and at the beginning of 1931 Bulgakov drafts a new letter. "I would like," he turns to Stalin, "to ask you to become my first reader."

As you know, after 1826, Nicholas the First became the “first reader” (and censor) of Pushkin. Bulgakov invites Stalin to repeat this scheme of the poet's relationship with the tsar. Stalin also did not agree to this - honorable for him - role. Bulgakov's plays, if staged, are removed from the repertoire after two or three performances. On May 30, 1931, he wrote to Stalin again: “Since the end of 1930, I have been ill with a severe form of neurosthenia with fits of fear and atrial anguish, and now I am finished.

In the wide field of Russian literature in the USSR, I was the only literary wolf. I was advised to dye the skin. Ridiculous advice. Whether a dyed wolf, a shorn wolf, he still does not look like a poodle.

They treated me like a wolf. And for several years they drove me according to the rules of a literary cage in a fenced yard.

I have no malice, but I am very tired. After all, even the beast can get tired.

The beast declared that he was no longer a wolf, not a writer. Refuses his profession. Falls silent. This is, frankly, cowardice.

There is no such writer that he would be silent. If he fell silent, it means he was not real.

And if the real one is silent, he will die. "

This letter opens with a quote from Gogol: "... to serve my motherland, I will have to be brought up somewhere far from her." "<...>finishing the letter, - adds Bulgakov, - I want to tell you, Iosif Vissarionovich, that my writer's dream is to be summoned to you personally ... Your conversation with me on the phone in April 1930 left a sharp line in my memory ”.

Apparently, on a call from above, the play "Dead Souls" staged by Bulgakov is allowed to be staged and the play "Days of the Turbins" is resumed on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater.

Not receiving a personal response from Stalin, and above all a response to a request for a meeting, Bulgakov focuses on the thought of leaving the USSR.

In 1933, he burns a part of the novel about the devil (the future "The Master and Margarita"), and in 1934 a performance with foreign passports is performed. Bulgakov and his wife are asked to appear at the foreign department of the city executive committee and fill in the necessary papers. Happy Mikhail Afanasevich and Elena Sergeevna hurry to the Moscow City Council. Throwing funny remarks, they fill out the questionnaires. The official, in front of whom their passports are on the table, says that the working day is over and he is expecting them tomorrow. The next day, history repeats itself: everything will be ready in a day. When they come every other day, they are promised: tomorrow you will receive your passports. But tomorrow and tomorrow will pass, and the official, as if he was a habit, utters the same word: tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow.

Bulgakov, who, upon the news that they were being released, exclaimed: “So, I am not a prisoner! So, I will see the light! ”, Understands that this is another game of a cat with a mouse. After keeping him in a state of ignorance for several days, the authorities send an official refusal. “MA,” writes Elena Sergeevna, “feels terrible - fear of death, loneliness”.

Passports are received by the artists of the Moscow Art Theater going abroad, the writer Pilnyak and his wife are receiving them. A barrier is lowered in front of Bulgakov. "I am a prisoner," he whispers at night, "I was artificially blinded."

As soon as he got up, he again worries, now his personal tyrant, with a letter. He tells a story with passports and asks for intercession.

Nobody even thinks to answer him.

In the summer of 1934, the first congress of Soviet writers opened. Bulgakov is not visible on it. The playwright Afinogenov called him: "Mikhail Afanasyevich, why don't you attend the congress?" Bulgakov: "I am afraid of the crowd."

And in the country, arrests and reprisals begin. How did Bulgakov live during these years? What did you think? What did you transfer? “We are completely alone,” Elena Sergeevna writes in her diary, “our situation is terrible.” Bulgakov doomedly says: "I will never see Europe." He is afraid to walk the streets. And again the "painful search for a way out" begins, and again an absurd, it seems, hope emerges: "a letter upward."

One of the family's friends, a man who sincerely loves Bulgakov, advises him: “Write a propaganda play ... Enough. You are a state within a state. How long can this go on? We must surrender, everyone surrendered. You are the only one left. This is silly".

But a wolf cannot become a poodle. Only if this poodle is not Mephistopheles or the hero of Bulgakov's new novel Woland, who was called to Moscow in the thirties in order to settle accounts with Soviet evil spirits.

The year is 1938. Bulgakov, in his next letter to Stalin, stands up for the playwright N. Erdman. Himself crippled, “finished off”, he asks for his colleague, who spent three years in exile in Siberia and cannot return to Moscow.

The potential “first reader” of Bulgakov is silent. True, the author of the letter is given an indulgence: they are given a place for a librettist at the Bolshoi Theater. Here in the spring of 1939 at the play "Ivan Susanin" Bulgakov sees Stalin in the tsar's box.

By that time, he was already thinking of "Batum" - a play about the young Joseph Dzhugashvili. Desperate to stage anything that is dear to him, Bulgakov takes this step towards Stalin as an attempt to still challenge him.

The attempt fails.

At first, all theaters are eager to stage a play about Stalin. The Moscow Art Theater is ready to conclude a contract, they are calling from Voronezh, Leningrad, Rostov. 1939 - the year of the sixtieth birthday of the leader, and everyone wants to "be noted", and even with what - a play by Bulgakov!

The telephone in his apartment does not go off.

In August, a group of directors and actors involved in the production of "Batum" travels to Georgia to get acquainted with the places where the play takes place. Bulgakov and his wife also went there.

At the Serpukhov station, a woman postman appears in the carriage and, entering the Bulgakovs compartment, asks: "Who is the Accountant here?" So, due to illegibility on the telegraph letterhead, she pronounces the name of Bulgakov. He reads: "The need for a trip has disappeared, return to Moscow."

Stalin delivers the final blow to him. "Lucy," Bulgakov will tell his wife, "he signed my death warrant."

What was the reason for the banning of the play? There is no direct evidence on this score. Except for Stalin's phrase, said to Vladimir Ivanovich Nemirovich-Danchenko: the play is good, but it's not worth staging. Did he not feel lust, first forcing Bulgakov to write about him (that is, to submit), and then not taking this “surrender” into account?

In Tula, the Bulgakovs get into the car and return to Moscow. The ZIS hired by them is racing at great speed. “Towards what are we rushing? - Bulgakov asks. - Maybe towards death?

After three hours, they enter their apartment. Bulgakov asks to draw the curtains. The light irritates him. He says, "It smells like a dead man in here."

The silence is dead. The phone doesn't ring.

Irritation from light is a symptom of a rapidly developing disease. Bulgakov begins to go blind. The shock he experienced in Serpukhov is the beginning of its end.

In October, he writes a will. He does not meet the year 1940 with a glass of wine, but with a beaker of potion in his hand. On January 17, a titmouse flies into the open window in their kitchen. Bad sign.

A group of actors from the Moscow Art Theater writes a letter "upward" with a request to allow the patient to leave for treatment in Italy. Only a sharp twist of fate, they argue, a twist to joy, can save him.

Bulgakov, to forget himself, learns Italian.

On the eve of his death, A. Fadeev, Secretary General of the Writers' Union, visits him. Bulgakov, when he leaves, says to his wife: "Don't let him come to me anymore."

He himself is already wearing black glasses. Doesn't see anything. Doesn't get up.

On the same day, a bell rings in his apartment. They call from Stalin's secretariat.

- What, Comrade Bulgakov died?

- Yes, he died.

And on the other end of the wire they put the receiver down.

In 1946, Bulgakov's widow addressed a letter to Stalin and asked to apply for the publication of at least a small collection of her husband's prose. But if the “first reader” of Pushkin, after the poet's death, who took care of his family, commits a human act, then the one whose audience was unsuccessfully sought after by one of the best writers of the 20th century, before last day will not forgive the Master for his life - what, we ask, talent, disobedience, nobility? All together, and therefore Bulgakov's books will begin their movement towards the reader only after the departure of the “Kremlin highlander” to the next world.

This article was published with the support of Bilettorg. The Bilettorg company will help you in a matter of seconds to familiarize yourself with the repertoires of the best theaters in Moscow, buy tickets for a concert or a circus. So, for example, by clicking on this link, you can order tickets at Lenkom (http://www.bilettorg.ru/theatre/31/). Lenkom Theater is one of the best theaters in Moscow, famous for such famous productions as "Juno and Avos", " The Cherry Orchard"," Tartuffe ". On the website of the company "Bilettorg" you can find out all the information about the actors and the nearest performances of Lenkom.

Mikhail Bulgakov's telephone conversation with Joseph Stalin took place on April 18, 1930. And he was summoned by a letter from the writer to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). This letter became a cry from the heart of the writer, who in 1929-30 was not allowed to stage a single play and was not allowed to publish a single line.

In that letter to the government of the USSR, dated March 28, 1930, Mikhail Bulgakov, talking about his situation, wrote: "now I am destroyed", "my things are hopeless", "the inability to write is tantamount to burial alive for me." Citing devastating reviews of his works, he defended himself:
“I prove, with documents in hand, that the entire press of the USSR, and with it all the institutions that gained control of the repertoire, during all the years of my literary work, unanimously and with extraordinary fury proved that the works of Mikhail Bulgakov in the USSR could not exist.
And I declare that the USSR press is absolutely right ...
The fight against censorship, whatever it may be and under whatever power it may exist, is my writer's duty ...
And, finally, my last features in the ruined plays "Days of the Turbins", "Run" and in the novel "The White Guard": a persistent portrayal of the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country ... Such an image is quite natural for a writer who is vitally connected with the intelligentsia.
But such images lead to the fact that their author in the USSR, along with his heroes, receives - despite his great efforts to become dispassionate over the reds and whites - a certificate of a White Guard, an enemy, and, having received it, as everyone understands, he can consider himself a goner in the USSR ...
I ask the government of the USSR to order me to urgently leave the USSR, accompanied by my wife Lyubov Evgenievna Bulgakova.
I appeal to the humanity of the Soviet regime and ask me, a writer who cannot be useful in his own country, in his fatherland, generously to release ... ".

And after such a cry from the heart on April 18, 1930, at about 19 o'clock, a phone call rang in Mikhail Bulgakov's apartment. The receiver was answered by his wife Lyubov Bulgakova (Belozerskaya). Hearing that the call from the Central Committee, she called her husband. Bulgakov considered it a joke, so he went up to the receiver irritated.
Secretary: Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov?
Bulgakov: Yes, yes.
Secretary: Comrade Stalin will speak to you now.
Bulgakov: What? Stalin?
... 2-3 minutes have passed ...
Stalin: Stalin speaks to you. Hello, Comrade Bulgakov.
Bulgakov: Hello, Joseph Vissarionovich.
Stalin: We have received your letter. We read it with comrades. You will have a favorable answer on it ... Or maybe it’s true - are you asking to go abroad? Are you really tired of us?
Bulgakov (confused and not right away): ... I've been thinking a lot lately - can a Russian writer live outside his homeland. And it seems to me that it cannot.
Stalin: You are right. I think so too. Where do you want to work? At the Art Theater?
Bulgakov: Yes, I would like to. But I talked about it, and they turned me down.
Stalin: And you apply there. It seems to me that they will agree. We would need to meet and talk with you.
Bulgakov: Yes, yes! Joseph Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you.
Stalin: Yes, you need to find time and meet, be sure. And now I wish you all the best.

Bulgakov's meeting with Stalin never took place. But on April 19, 1930, Bulgakov was enrolled as an assistant director at the Moscow Art Theater. And he also got a job at TRAM (Theater of Working Youth). However, the plays were never staged.

On May 30, 1931, in another letter to Stalin, Bulgakov wrote:
"Since the end of 1930, I have been suffering from a severe form of neurasthenia with fits of fear and atrial anguish, and at the present time I am finished.
I have intentions, but there are no physical strengths, there are no conditions necessary to do the work. The cause of my illness is clearly known to me.
In the wide field of Russian literature in the USSR, I was the only literary wolf. I was advised to dye the skin. Ridiculous advice. Whether a dyed wolf, a shorn wolf, he still does not look like a poodle. They treated me like a wolf. And for several years they drove me according to the rules of a literary cage in a fenced yard. I have no malice, but I am very tired. After all, even the beast can get tired.
The beast declared that he was no longer a wolf, not a writer. Refuses his profession. Falls silent. This is, frankly, cowardice.
There is no such writer that he would be silent. If he fell silent, it means he was not real. And if the real one is silent, he will die "...

True, Stalin attended a production of Bulgakov's play "Zoykina's Apartment" twice, noting: "It's a good play! I don't understand, I don't understand at all why it is either allowed or prohibited. It's a good play, I don't see anything bad." And in February 1932, Stalin, having watched Afinogenov's play Fear, which he did not like, said to the theater representatives: "You had a good play, Days of the Turbins, why is it not going on? ... It's a good play, it needs to be staged, put it on." ... An order followed to restore the production.

In addition to the restored "Days of the Turbins" at the Moscow Art Theater followed the long-awaited staging of his play "Cabal of the Sanctifier" (which was soon removed from the repertoire). Permitted for production staged by Bulgakov " Dead Souls".

But all this time Bulgakov is looking for a meeting with Stalin, hoping to explain his position in dialogue and understand his position. In one letter, he even asked Stalin to "become my first reader." But there is no more contact with the leader.

In 1934, the Bulgakovs were summoned to the city executive committee to fill out the paperwork for leaving the USSR. Bulgakov is delighted and believes that the imprisonment is over and "So, I will see the light!" But after a few days he received an official refusal.

And Bulgakov again writes a letter to Stalin personally with a request for intercession.
No answer.

In 1938, Bulgakov, in another letter to Stalin, interceded for the poet and playwright Nikolai R. Erdman, who was not allowed to return to Moscow after being exiled to Siberia.
No answer.

In 1939, Bulgakov was given a place as a librettist at the Bolshoi Theater, where he also works as a translator. And once at the play "Ivan Susanin" Bulgakov saw in Stalin's box. But Stalin did not pay attention to him

Friends advise Bulgakov: "Write a propaganda play ... How long can this go on? We must give up, everyone has surrendered. You are left alone. This is stupid." And Bulgakov is trying to take a step forward - he writes the play "Batum" about the young Joseph Dzhugashvili. But the attempt fails.

When Bulgakov, with the director and actors involved in the production of Batum, leave for Georgia to get acquainted with historical places on the spot, a telegram is delivered to the train stating that "there is no need for a trip, return to Moscow."

It turns out that Stalin, during his visit to the Moscow Art Theater, told Nemirovich-Danchenko that "he considers the play" Batum "very good, but" it cannot be staged. "

"Lucy," Bulgakov said to his wife then, "he signed me a death warrant."

In October 1939, a desperate Bulgakov wrote a will. He's already sick. Colleagues and acquaintances wrote a letter to the government with a request to release Bulgakov to Italy for treatment.
No answer.

On the same day, a bell rang in his apartment. They called from Stalin's secretariat:
Secretary: What, Comrade Bulgakov died?
L. Bulgakova: Yes, he died.
They hung up on the other end of the wire.

Bulgakov and Stalin: master and tyrant

The topic of the relationship between the writer Mikhail Bulgakov and the general secretary of the CPSU (b) Joseph Stalin is one of the most popular in both historiography and literary criticism. It centers around the history of the last and perhaps the most mysterious (though far from the most talented) play by the playwright Batum, Bulgakov's letters to Stalin and the only telephone conversation between them. At the same time, the opinions about the attitude of Bulgakov to Stalin and Stalin to Bulgakov are polar opposite: from love to hate. Indeed, there is a certain duality in the relationship between the writer and the dictator. Stalin does not let Bulgakov go abroad, does not allow the staging of Bulgakov's plays (with one important exception) and the publication of Bulgakov's prose. At the same time, on his order, his favorite Stalinist play "Days of the Turbins" was restored in the repertoire of the Moscow Art Theater. And obviously not without Stalin's instructions Bulgakov, who did not hide his ideological opposition to the Bolsheviks and the Soviet regime, did not touch the wave of repression. I think that in order to answer all the questions, we must try to trace how the opinions of Bulgakov and Stalin about each other evolved.

In December 1928, members of the "Proletarian Theater" association, an analogue of the RAPP and AHRR in the theatrical sphere, turned to Stalin with a letter. Playwrights V. Bill-Belotserkovsky, A. Glebov and director B. Reich, on behalf of a dozen of their comrades-in-arms, who also signed the letter, asked: ideological productions, in particular in the field of fiction and theater? Are such facts as the sensational conflict in the Moscow Art Theater-2 (where the Soviet public has so far won), as "Golovanovism" (not completely eliminated at the Bolshoi Theater, but raised its head in the Conservatory, where it took its side ... party cell!), how is the Glaviskusstvo encouraging the shift to the right of the Moscow Art Theater-1 (where the Soviet and party communities are a beat)?

Do you consider Comrade Svidersky's statement (published in Rabochaya Gazeta) that "every (?) Work of fiction is already revolutionary in its essence" Marxist and Bolshevik? Do you consider Marxist and Bolshevik art politics based on such a statement?

Do you find it timely in the given political conditions, instead of pushing such an artistic force as the Moscow Art Theater-1, towards a revolutionary theme or at least towards a revolutionary interpretation of the classics, in every possible way to facilitate this theater sliding to the right, to disorganize ideologically that part of the Moscow Art Theater, which is already is capable and wants to work with us, confuse her, push back this part of theatrical specialists, permitting the staging of such a play as Bulgakov's Run, - according to the unanimous opinion of the artistic and political council of the Glavrepertkom and the meeting in the MK VKP (b), which is weak a disguised apology of white heroism ("Days of the Turbins" Lunacharsky considered a "semi-apology" of the White Guard. - B.S.), a much more explicit justification for the white movement than was done in Days of the Turbins (by the same author)? Is the need to show the White emigration as a victim crucified at Calvary on one of the largest Moscow scenes dictated by any political considerations? ..

How to assess the actual "most favored" of the most reactionary authors (like Bulgakov, who achieved the production of four clearly anti-Soviet plays in three of the largest theaters in Moscow; moreover, plays that are by no means outstanding in their artistic qualities, but stand best case, on the Middle level?"

Let's leave on the conscience of the zealots of "proletarian culture" their assessment of "Crimson Island", "Zoyka's apartment", "Days of the Turbins" and "Run" as average plays. It is not clear only why these "average" plays supported the material well-being of the three largest theaters of the capital: Khudozhestvenny, Vakhtangovsky and Kamerny, and the Politburo was even forced to postpone the ban on Zoyka's apartment on February 20, 1928, since it "is the main source of livelihood for Vakhtangov Theater ".

Bill-Belotserkovsky and his comrades continued: “One can speak of 'most favored' because the organs of proletarian control over the theater are virtually powerless in relation to authors such as Bulgakov. Example: "Running", banned by our censorship and yet breaking through this ban! while all other authors (including communists) are subordinate to the control of the repertoire committee?

How to look at such an actual division of authors into black and white bones, and in more favorable conditions it turns out to be "white"? (it would be more correct to speak, perhaps, of "red" and "white" bones; from the indisputable fact that "white" authors, like Bulgakov, were much more talented than "red" ones, like Vsevolod Vishnevsky or Belotserkovsky himself, the author of the letter deliberately abstracted. - B.S.)…

If all of the above allows us to say that “not everything is well” in the field of artistic policy, then, in your opinion, is the struggle that is being waged with this “trouble” intense and effective enough, and in the development of which we have heard references to the most consistent representatives of the right "liberal" course for your sympathy?

To this literary and theatrical denunciation, which was a poorly disguised attempt to drown competitors who are dangerous with their talent on the stage and influencing the minds and hearts of the audience, Stalin responded only on February 1, 1929. He addressed the answer to Bill-Belotserkovsky, unmistakably determining that he was the author of the text of the letter. We will touch upon that part of the Stalinist epistle, which deals with "Run," later. Now let us consider Stalin's answers to other questions posed by the author through the "revolutionary" and today deservedly forgotten "Storm".

Iosif Vissarionovich wrote: “I consider it wrong to pose the question of“ right ”and“ left ”in fiction(and hence in the theater). The concept of "right" or "left" at present in our country is a party concept, in fact - an intra-party concept. "Right" or "left" are people who deviate in one direction or another from a purely party line. Therefore, it would be strange to apply these concepts to such a non-partisan and incomparably wider field as fiction, theater, etc. These concepts can still be applied to one or another party (communist) circle in fiction. Inside such a circle there can be "right" and "left". But to apply them in fiction in general, where there are all and all kinds of trends, up to anti-Soviet and downright counter-revolutionary, is to put all concepts upside down. It would be more correct in fiction to operate with the concepts of class order, or even with the concepts of "Soviet", "anti-Soviet", "revolutionary", "anti-revolutionary", etc. (in this context, the concepts of "revolutionary" and "anti-revolutionary" do not mean anything revolutionary or conservative in style and aesthetics, but only state whether the author of a given work of art is a supporter or an opponent October revolution. – B.S.)

It follows from what has been said that I cannot regard "Golovanovism" as either a "right" or a "left" danger — it lies outside the boundaries of partisanship. "Golovanovism" is an anti-Soviet phenomenon. From this, of course, it does not follow that Golovanov himself cannot correct himself, that he cannot free himself from his mistakes, that he must be persecuted and persecuted even when he is ready to say goodbye to his mistakes, that he must be forced in this way to go abroad. ...

It is true that Comrade Svidersky often makes the most incredible mistakes and distortions. But it is also true that the Repertkom makes no fewer mistakes in its work, albeit in the other direction.

Remember "Crimson Island", "Conspiracy of Equals" and similar waste paper for a truly bourgeois Chamber Theater.

As for the rumors about "liberalism", let's better not talk about it - leave it to the Moscow merchants to deal with "rumors". "

Today it is very difficult for us to imagine that back in the late 1920s, Stalin was suspected of "liberalism", if not on the political, then at least on the cultural front. However, as we have seen, the leader resolutely rejected such slander and did not seem to give a reason for them.

I would like to note that the play by Mikhail Levidov, The Conspiracy of Equals, was awarded on November 17, 1927, a special passable resolution of the Politburo, where the Secretariat of the Central Committee was instructed to “establish the circle of persons responsible for the fact that the Politburo was faced with the need to film a play that was allowed to be staged without prior due diligence” ...

This was preceded by an angry letter from S.N. Krylova to Molotov from November 16, 1927: “The Chamber Theater staged, as an anniversary play,“ The Conspiracy of Equals ”by the tabloid feuilletonist Mikhail Levidov.

The play is replete with the words "gravediggers of the revolution", "settled, nourished, drunken by the revolution", "traitors to the revolution", "the people are tired", "life was better under Robespierre", "the revolution is over", "I am an old master of politics (Barras)" and so similar expressions borrowed from the platform and speeches of the opposition.

This play this summer was read by Levidov to a group of oppositionists in Kislovodsk and received approval there. Then A.V. read it. Lunacharsky also approved. Then he approved the General Repertoire Committee (by letter A, that is, in the first category, without a doubt, and the member of the GRK, Comrade Popov-Dubovsky, did not get acquainted with the thing, but Pikel (Zinoviev's secretary - B.S.) approved it, sanctioned Comrade Mordvinkin.

At the viewing of the play in the theater on November 5, I told the GRK that a big mistake had been made with the admission of a decadent, libelous thing to the stage, that I personally was in favor of filming, but I had to coordinate the issue with Comrade Krinitsky (head of Agitprop. - B.S.) ... Krinitsky's opinion coincided with mine.

At the suggestion of Comrade Krinitsky, I appointed another viewing of the performance on the 15th yesterday. Responsible communist workers - 30–35 people - were invited to the screening. From the exchange of opinions after viewing, it became clear:

1) complete unanimity (with the exception of Pickel and Lunacharsky) in assessing the play as a bad play that should not have been allowed to be staged and

2) the discrepancy in the question - should the play be removed from the repertoire. Most of the comrades who have spoken out (Lunacharsky, Pikel, Mordvinkin, Polonsky, Lebedev-Polyansky, Kerzhentsev, Raskolnikov, Sapozhnikov, etc.) consider it impossible to film the play for various reasons, mainly political. The minority (Popov-Dubovskoy, Krylov, Chernyavsky, etc.) spoke in favor of immediate withdrawal.

Rumors have been circulating about the play since the summer, apparently started up by the opposition. The play is clearly designed to evoke analogies in the viewer: the Directory is the Politburo, Babeuf is Trotsky, the period of Thermidor and fructidor is our time, the tails of bakeries are our tails, etc.

The audience is already, even before the premiere, intrigued by the performance: all tickets for the announced 4 performances have been snapped up.

Demonstrative antics are possible during performances.

In the present political situation, there will be less harm from the immediate removal of the play from the repertoire than from the abandonment of libel on the stage. "

The reasons for the prohibition of the "Conspiracy of Equals" lay on the surface. The Trotskyite-Zinoviev opposition, whose leader Trotsky never tired of repeating about the "Thermidorian degeneration" of the revolution, was just crushed, and here is a play telling just about the era of Thermidor, and with very obvious political allusions.

Moreover, even today it is impossible to say with certainty whether such allusions were included in the author's intention of Mikhail Yulievich Levidov (Levit), who, perhaps, sympathized with Trotsky, or whether he became a victim of his own theory of "organized simplification of culture." After all, the playwright proclaimed: "The masses love hack-work, and we have no right to interfere with their tastes." So he made it easy. It is quite possible that Levidov was only trying to "modernize" the historical material in the most primitive way, without thinking that in the existing political context of the struggle against the opposition, many parallels would turn out to be more than risky. In any case, Mikhail Yulievich paid the most dear price for his frivolity. In June 1941, he was arrested and shot on May 5, 1942. The verdict reads: “For espionage in favor of Great Britain, irrefutably proven by visiting Swift's tomb in St. Patrick's Cathedral in Dublin, sentence M.Yu. Levidov. (p. 1891/92) to the capital punishment - execution ". It is characteristic that at the time of the execution, England was a Soviet ally.

On February 12, 1929, at a meeting with Ukrainian writers, Stalin demanded: “To unite national culture on the basis of a common socialist content, by strengthening the development of national cultures ... If you Marxists think that a common language will ever be created (and it will be ... not Russian , not French, - the national question cannot be solved in one state, the national question has become non-state for a long time), if ever a common language is created - it will be created unconditionally - then this is after the world dictatorship of the proletariat is conquered ... only ... when socialism will take root not in one country, but in many countries. So - the development of national cultures in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat, maximum development, patronage of national cultures, therefore we patronize these cultures so that they, having exhausted themselves with might and main ... create the basis for the development of the language throughout the world, not Russian, but the international language. When it will be? Too far before that time. Lenin is right in saying that it will take a long time - after the international dictatorship of the proletariat is established throughout the world. "

Joseph Vissarionovich then believed that the epic, long-awaited by the Marxists of the time, when instead of a world consisting of tens and hundreds of "Russia and Latvia", there will be "a single human community", is still very far away. Stalin complained to Ukrainian writers: “They do not understand that ... we want to prepare the elements of international socialist culture through the ultimate development of national culture, just as they do not understand how we want to come to the destruction of classes by intensifying the class struggle, or how we want to come to withering away state through an unprecedented expansion of the functions of this state, or how we want to achieve the unification of the peoples of different countries by separating them, by freeing them from any oppression, by giving them the right to form a national state ”.

Well, about the "exacerbation of the class struggle" and the "unprecedented expansion of the functions of the state," we all know perfectly well what this resulted in: into violent collectivization with millions of those who died of hunger, into hundreds of thousands of victims of political repression, including among the party elite, to completely nullify even those remnants of democratic freedoms that were allowed even in the 1920s, at least within the framework of internal party discussions. And what about the "ultimate development of national culture" ... It also did not last long. In the same speech to a delegation of Ukrainian writers, Stalin said: “In what ... language can we raise the culture of Ukraine? Only in Ukrainian ... There is no other means of raising the culture of the masses, except for the native language ... The prospects are such that national cultures even the smallest nationalities of the USSR will develop, and we will help them. Without this, move forward, raise millions of people to the highest level of culture, and thereby make our industry, our Agriculture defensive ... we will not be able to ... Ukrainian workers will act as heroes of works, there are many of them now. Even the native Russian workers, who shrugged off before and did not want to study the Ukrainian language - and I know many who complained to me: “I can't, Comrade. Stalin, the language does not turn to study the Ukrainian language ”, now they speak differently, they have learned the Ukrainian language. I am not even talking about new workers, due to which the composition of the working class will be replenished. "

On February 12, 1929, at a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian writers, Stalin spoke in the most detail about Bulgakov's work: “... Take, for example, this very well-known Bulgakov. If you take his Days of the Turbins, he is definitely a stranger. He is hardly a Soviet way of thinking. However, with his "Turbins" he still brought great benefit, of course.

Kaganovich: Ukrainians do not agree (noise, talk).

Stalin: I'll tell you, I'm judging from the viewer's point of view. Take "Days of the Turbins" - what will be the overall impression left on the viewer? Despite the negative aspects - what they are, I will also say - the overall impression remains the same when the viewer leaves the theater - this is the impression of the invincible strength of the Bolsheviks. Even such strong, staunch people, “honest” in their own way, like Turbin and those around him, even such people, “impeccable” in their own way and “honest” in their own way, had to admit in the end that there was nothing with these Bolsheviks. can not be helped. I think that the author, of course, did not want this, he is innocent of this, that is not the point, of course. The Days of the Turbins is the greatest demonstration in favor of the overwhelming power of Bolshevism.

Stalin: Sorry. I cannot demand from a writer that he must necessarily be a communist and must carry the party point of view. For fiction, other measures are needed — not revolutionary and revolutionary, Soviet — not Soviet, proletarian — not proletarian. But it is impossible to demand that literature be communist too. They often say: the right play or the left, it depicts the right danger. This is wrong, comrades. The right and left danger is purely party ... Is it party literature? ...

From this point of view, from the point of view of a larger scale, and from the point of view of other methods of approaching literature, I say that even the play "Days of the Turbins" played a big role. The workers go to watch this play and see: aha, but no force can take the Bolsheviks! Here's a general residue of impressions from this play, which can in no way be called Soviet. There is negative traits, in this play. These Turbines are honest people in their own way, given as individuals cut off from their environment. But Bulgakov does not want to outline the real state of affairs, does not want to outline the fact that, although they may be honest people in their own way, they are sitting on someone else's neck, for which they are being persecuted.

The same Bulgakov has a play "Running". In this play, the type of one woman is given - the Seraphim and one assistant professor is brought out. These people are described as honest and so on. And it’s impossible to understand why the Bolsheviks actually persecute them - after all, both Serafima and this assistant professor, both of them are refugees, in their own way honest incorruptible people, but Bulgakov - for that he and Bulgakov - did not depict the fact that these, in their own way, honest people, sit on someone else's neck. This is the rationale behind why such, in their own way, honest people are kicked out of our country. Bulgakov deliberately or not deliberately does not portray this.

But even from people like Bulgakov, you can get something useful. I am talking in this case about the play "Days of the Turbins". Even in such a play, even from such a person, you can take something useful for us. "

But the music did not play for long, the native Russian worker did not study the Ukrainian language for long. Already in the second half of the 30s, many Ukrainian party and Soviet workers and cultural figures were repressed on charges of "bourgeois nationalism." Similar accusations were brought against the elite of other union republics, only nationalisms, respectively, were different: Kazakh, Belarusian, Georgian, Azerbaijani, etc.

Allusions, however, became an increasingly terrible sin from the point of view of Stalin and censorship. Mikhail Bulgakov experienced this on himself in connection with his works about Moliere - a biography for ZhZL and the play "Cabal of the holy man".

Stalin evaluated Bulgakov's drama from two sides: politically and aesthetically. As early as January 14, 1929, the Politburo formed a commission consisting of K.E. Voroshilova, L.M. Kaganovich and A.P. Smirnov. On January 29, Voroshilov told Stalin that the commission had come to the conclusion "about the political inexpediency of staging the play in the theater," based on his analysis of The Run. Iosif Vissarionovich wrote his answer to Bill-Belotserkovsky on February 1, and the day before, on January 30, the Politburo made a decision "on the inexpediency of staging the play in the theater" .M. Kerzhentsev. Probably, on Stalin's initiative, the word "political" disappeared from the text of the Politburo decision, which undoubtedly meant a milder form of prohibition, which did not imply any organizational conclusions against the theater and the playwright.

Kerzhentsev, in particular, recognized considerable artistic merit a play, from which a very strong performance could be made, but it was precisely these merits in the depiction of “negative” characters, according to Soviet standards, that he considered politically harmful: “The general tone of the play is extremely dangerous. The whole play is built on conciliatory, compassionate moods, which the author is trying to evoke and, no doubt, will call the audience to his heroes.

Charnota will bribe the audience with his spontaneity, Khludov - with Hamlet's torments and "atonement for original sin", Seraphim and Golubkov - with his moral purity and decency, Lyuska - with self-sacrifice, and even Wrangel will impress the audience.

In emigration, the author paints the horrors of their material and moral life. Bulgakov is not stingy in paints to show how this group of people, among whom each is good in his own way, was tormented, suffered and tormented, often undeservedly and unfairly. "

Probably Stalin himself read The Run. And he was in solidarity with Kerzhentsev in the high aesthetic appreciation of the play. As for the political assessment, here their opinions seem to differ somewhat. If Platon Mikhailovich saw the main danger in the "rehabilitation" of the white generals, then Joseph Vissarionovich looked at the matter more deeply. In his letter to Bill-Belotserkovsky, he did not even mention the generals, but focused the fire of criticism on "all sorts of assistant professors" and "in their own way" honest "Seraphim", that is, on those whom Kerzhentsev considered characters, although endowed with purity and decency, but purely secondary. For Stalin, the victory of the Bolsheviks, achieved, among other things, with the help of incredible cruelty, mercilessness towards those who are not with them, could be justified only by the unconditional guilt of all their victims. Stalin had to believe that the part of the Russian intelligentsia, which did not belong to the White movement at all, in the words of Kerzhentsev, "pure, crystal in its decency, bright in spirit, but extremely divorced from life and helpless in the struggle", in fact, was tainted by the fact that it was sitting on the necks of the workers and peasants, built her well-being on their sweat and blood. Had Bulgakov agreed to humiliate Seraphima and Golubkov, add the required one or two dreams, where they are opposed to "a man of the people", and "The Run" would probably have been missed on the stage of Stalin's beloved Art Theater. But Mikhail Afanasyevich, in a letter to the government, openly calling one of the main features of his work "the persistent portrayal of the Russian intelligentsia as the best layer in our country", did not compromise with his conscience.

It seems that until 1926, before the staging of Days of the Turbins, and even later, the figure of Stalin meant very little to Bulgakov. In Bulgakov's diary of 1923-1925, Stalin's name is not mentioned even once, although Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Rykov are present (the latter, however, only because of his truly legendary drunkenness). The first Bulgakov letter, which fell into the hands of Stalin, was not yet addressed to him personally, but to the "Government of the USSR", and, in addition to the secretary general, had a number of addressees, such as the head of the OGPU Heinrich Yagoda and the chairman of the Glavischestva Felix Kohn. After this letter of March 28, 1930, a memorable telephone conversation between Stalin and Bulgakov took place. Different witnesses describe its course in different ways. Bulgakov's second wife, Lyubov Evgenievna Belozerskaya, the only one who heard the whole conversation on the branch telephone receiver, asserts: “Stalin was on the line. He spoke in a dull voice, with an obvious Georgian accent and called himself in the third person: "Stalin received, Stalin read ..." He suggested to Bulgakov:

- Maybe you want to go abroad? ..

But M.A. preferred to stay in the Union. "

There is a slightly different version, set forth by Bulgakov's third wife, Elena Sergeevna Shilovskaya (Nuremberg), to whom Bulgakov told about a conversation with Stalin on the same day, April 18, 1930: “... A voice with a clearly Georgian accent:

- Yes, Stalin is talking to you. Hello, Comrade Bulgakov ...

- Hello, Joseph Vissarionovich.

- We received your letter. We read it with comrades. You will have a favorable answer on it ... Or maybe it’s true - you are asking to go abroad? What, are you really tired of us?

(Mikhail Afanasyevich said that he did not expect such a question so much (and he did not expect a call at all) - 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 it seems to me that it cannot.

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

- Yes, I wanted to. But I talked about it, and they turned me down.

- And you apply there. It seems to me that they will agree. We would need to meet, talk to you.

- Yes Yes! Joseph Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you.

- Yes, you need to find time and be sure to meet. And now I wish you all the best. "

There are other options Bulgakov's story about the famous conversation. Very interesting, in particular, is the one quoted in his memoirs by an American friend of Bulgakov, an employee of the US Embassy in Moscow, Charles Boolen: “Stalin asked Bulgakov why he wanted to leave his homeland, and Bulgakov explained that since he is a professional playwright, but he could not work in this capacity in the USSR, I would like to do this abroad. Stalin told him: “Don't act hastily. We'll sort something out. " A few days later Bulgakov was appointed an assistant director at the First Moscow Art Theater ... "Of course, all these memoirs were written several decades later and, of course, they do not pretend to be absolutely accurate. It seems, however, that on the whole the course of the conversation was recreated quite correctly, especially since its echoes are found in subsequent Bulgakov's letters.

In a message dated March 28, 1930, Bulgakov offered the country's leaders an alternative: "a writer who cannot be useful in his own country, generously set free" or appoint a "laboratory assistant-director at the 1st Art Theater - to the best school headed by masters K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko "- otherwise he is in danger of" poverty, street and death. " Stalin chose to leave Bulgakov in the USSR. Later, in 1946, Bulgakov's antagonist and successful competitor, playwright Vsevolod Vishnevsky, speaking at one of the meetings at the Moscow Art Theater, conveyed Stalin's words: "Our strength lies in what we and Bulgakov taught to work for us." Now Bulgakov until the end of his life had to serve in Soviet theaters, unofficially called "courtiers" - in the Khudozhestvenny and Bolshoi. True, his theatrical service began in the much less prestigious Moscow Theater of Working Youth - TRAM, and, obviously, without any intervention of Stalin. Bulgakov was hired to work at TRAM since April 1, 1930, and, according to Elena Sergeevna, the theater leaders came to invite the disgraced playwright to the position of a literary consultant on April 3. It is possible that this is the earliest result of Bulgakov's letter, the initiative of F. Cohn or one of his subordinates, who tried in this rather simple way to solve the problem of the life of the persecuted playwright, but who showed loyalty to Soviet power in the letter. And the fundamental decision on Bulgakov's fate at a much higher level was made even before the telephone conversation between Stalin and Bulgakov.

Already on April 12, Yagoda imposed a resolution on the letter of March 28, saving its author: "We must be given the opportunity to work wherever he wants." Probably, we will never know for sure whether the NKVD chief made this decision on his own or at the direction of Stalin. True, Bulgakov was not admitted to the Art Theater even for the modest position of director-assistant Bulgakov immediately and not literally the next day after his conversation with Stalin, as some memoirists present the case. Only on April 25 the question of Bulgakov's employment was positively resolved at the Politburo. The writer himself could not know about this, and on May 5 he sent Stalin a new desperate message: “Dear Joseph Vissarionovich! I would not allow myself to bother you with a letter if poverty had not forced me to do so. I ask you, if possible, to receive me in the first half of May. I have no means of salvation. " It was about this letter that L.E. Belozerskaya, who did not know the text of the letter dated March 28, published by E.S. Shilovskaya. This is what Lyubov Evgenievna wrote about this in her memoirs: “... The original letter, firstly, was short. Secondly, he did not ask abroad. Thirdly, there were no lofty expressions, no philosophical generalizations in the letter. The main idea of ​​Bulgakov's letter was very simple.

“Give the writer the opportunity to write. By declaring him a civilian death, you are pushing him to the most extreme measure. "

As for the absence of a letter with "philosophical generalizations", Belozerskaya, I repeat, was in good faith mistaken. But about one of the motives why Stalin decided to meet Bulgakov halfway in fulfilling the most modest of his desires, the writer's second wife, I think, was not mistaken. Let us recall the chronicle of events:

in 1925 the poet Sergei Yesenin committed suicide;

in 1926 - the writer Andrei Sobol;

in April 1930, when Bulgakov's appeal, sent at the end of March, was already in Stalin's hands, Vladimir Mayakovsky shot himself. Would it have turned out badly if Mikhail Bulgakov had committed suicide in the same year? "

Stalin did not accept Bulgakov, but in pursuance of the April decision of Mikhail Afanasyevich on May 10, he was enrolled in the Moscow Art Theater. It is unlikely that in fact this was in any way connected with Bulgakov's appeal to the general secretary on May 5. Most likely, it took two weeks to bring the decision of the Politburo to the attention of the management of the Moscow Art Theater. But Bulgakov, most likely, linked admission “to the best school, headed by the masters K.S. Stanislavsky and V.I. Nemirovich-Danchenko ”, with his second letter to Stalin, which strengthened in him a sense of gratitude to the leader.

Now Mikhail Afanasyevich pinned all hopes for a better future on a meeting with Joseph Vissarionovich. In a letter to V.V. Veresaev on July 22, 1931, he confessed: “I have a painful misfortune. This is what my conversation with the Secretary General did not take place. It is horror and a black coffin. I desperately want to see other countries, even for a short time. I get up with this thought and fall asleep with it. Before that, in a draft letter to Stalin, Bulgakov asked him: "... to become my first reader ...", and in a letter dated May 30, 1931, he asked for permission for a short-term trip abroad: "During the years of my writing, all non-party and party citizens inspired and inspired me, that from the very moment I wrote and released the first line, and until the end of my life, I will never see other countries.

If this is so, the horizon is closed to me, the higher school of writing has been taken away from me, I am deprived of the opportunity to solve huge problems for myself. The psychology of the prisoner is instilled.

How will I sing of my country - the USSR? "

In conclusion, Bulgakov wrote: “... I want to tell you, Joseph Vissarionovich, that my writer's dream is to be summoned to you personally.

Believe me, not only because I see this as the most profitable opportunity, but because your conversation with me on the phone in April 1930 left a sharp line in my memory.

You said, "Maybe you really need to go abroad ..."

I'm not spoiled for talk. Moved by this phrase, I did not work for a year as a director in theaters of the USSR for fear. "

In his letter to Veresaev, Bulgakov wondered why Stalin did not accept him: “For a year I racked my brains, trying to figure out what had happened? After all, I did not hallucinate when I heard his words? After all, he said the phrase: "Perhaps you really need to go abroad? .."

He pronounced it! What happened? After all, he wanted to accept me? .. "

And written in 1931, the play "Adam and Eve" Bulgakov ends with the words addressed to the autobiographical hero in many respects - the scientist-creator Efrosimov: "Go, the general secretary wants to see you."

Stalin was silent. No permission to leave was given. But in January 1932, on a personal Stalinist order, the Days of the Turbins were restored at the Moscow Art Theater. And even earlier, in October 31st, the censorship allowed Bulgakov's play about Moliere. Of the two questions that the playwright invariably raised in his relationship with the secretary general, about going abroad and about the fate of his works, the first invariably received a negative decision. Particularly humiliating was the refusal to travel abroad in the summer of 1934, which provoked an indignant letter to Stalin, which, like the previous one, remained unanswered. But about the, albeit very metered, penetration of Bulgakov's plays onto the stage, Stalin, perhaps, took care of it. He only tried to ensure that Bulgakov, who had no worthy competitors among the "ideologically reliable" playwrights, would in no way dominate here. What is the reason for this ambivalent attitude?

Stalin undoubtedly loved Days of the Turbins and watched the Mkhatov play about twenty times. As V.Ya. Lakshin, in his famous speech on July 3, 1941, in the most difficult days of the Great Patriotic War, “Stalin, looking for words that could reach everyone's heart, consciously or unconsciously used the phraseology and intonation of Alexei Turbin's monologue on the stairs in the gymnasium:“ I am addressing you I, my friends ... "" (instead of government-party "comrades"). And the performer of the role of Alexei Turbin, Nikolai Khmelev, told Elena Sergeevna that “Stalin once told him: you play Alexei well. I even dream about your black mustache (turbino). I can’t forget ”. Stalin even defended the play in front of "frantic adherents." So, in February 29th, at a meeting with Ukrainian writers who openly declared: “We want our penetration into Moscow to result in the removal of this play,” he quite reasonably objected: “If you write only about the Communists, this is not will come out. We have a population of one hundred and forty million, and there are only one and a half million communists. These plays are not staged for the communists alone. " And then, in February, Stalin wrote a reply to the playwright Vladimir Bill-Belotserkovsky about the play "Running", where he also spoke about the "Days of the Turbins": "Why are Bulgakov's plays so often staged on the stage? Because, it must be, there are not enough of their own plays suitable for staging. Even the Days of the Turbins are fish without fish ...

As far as the play "Days of the Turbins" is concerned, it is not so bad, for it gives more benefit than harm. Do not forget that the main impression that the viewer has from this play is an impression favorable for the Bolsheviks: “Even if people like Turbins are forced to lay down their arms and submit to the will of the people, recognizing their cause as completely lost, then the Bolsheviks are invincible, nothing can be done with them, the Bolsheviks. " The Days of the Turbins is a demonstration of the overwhelming power of Bolshevism.

But Stalin rejected "The Run" as "a manifestation of an attempt to arouse pity, if not sympathy, for some layers of anti-Soviet emigre", as an attempt to "justify or semi-justify the White Guard cause", as an "anti-Soviet phenomenon." However, with certain changes in the text, which is impossible for a playwright to abuse his beloved characters, he was ready to allow this play as well: “However, I would have nothing against staging“ The Run ”if Bulgakov added one or two more dreams to his eight dreams , where he would depict the internal social springs of the civil war in the USSR, so that the viewer could understand that all these, in their own way, "honest" Seraphim and all sorts of assistant professors, were kicked out of Russia not at the whim of the Bolsheviks, but because they were sitting on the necks of the people (despite their "honesty") that the Bolsheviks, driving out these "honest" supporters of exploitation, carried out the will of the workers and peasants and therefore acted absolutely right. "

Stalin also closely followed the fate of Bulgakov's Moliere. After many years of ordeal, the play was finally brought to a dress rehearsal at the Moscow Art Theater in February 1936. Elena Sergeevna wrote in her diary on the 6th: "Yesterday ... there was the first dress rehearsal of Moliere ... This is not the performance that I have been waiting for since 1930, but with the public ... it was a success." The first private viewing of the play, "for the proletarian students," was attended by Stalin's secretary Poskrebyshev, who, according to Elena Sergeevna's sister Olga Bokshanskaya, who, in turn, referred to the director of the Art Theater, liked the production and he even expressed a wish: certainly that I.V. looked ". It seems, however, that Bulgakov's wife in this case was the victim of a “damaged telephone”. Either Poskrebyshev really didn’t like Moliere, or Stalin, based on the story of his secretary, concluded that “this is not the performance he dreamed of.” In any case, he approved the proposals of the same Kerzhentsev, who has now become the head of the Committee for Arts, for the "quiet" removal of Moliere, without a formal ban, but through the publication of a devastating editorial in Pravda. Such an article, "External shine and fake content", did not hesitate to appear on March 9 and put an end to stage destiny"Moliere". On February 29, Kerzhentsev reported to the Politburo that Bulgakov “wanted in his new play to show the fate of a writer whose ideology runs counter to the political system, whose plays are banned ... The mysterious Cabal is fighting against the talented writer (the original title of the play is The Cabal of Saints) seemed overly relevant to the censorship. B.S.), led by the priests, the ideologists of the monarchical regime. The leaders of the royal musketeers are fighting against Moliere, - the privileged guard and the king's police ... And at one time only the king interceded for Moliere and defends him against the persecution of the Catholic Church ... " under the "extrajudicial tyranny of Louis XIV". And the conclusion: "Despite all the obscurity of the hints, the political meaning that Bulgakov puts into his work is quite clear, although, perhaps, the majority of viewers will not notice these hints." Probably, Stalin did not like the fact that in the relationship between Moliere and Louis XIV, viewers could see an allusion to the relationship of Bulgakov himself with his powerful interlocutor.

Meanwhile, immediately after the general Moliere, the playwright had an unexpected idea. On that day, Elena Sergeevna wrote: “M.A. finally decided to write a play about Stalin. " On February 18, Bulgakov repeated this idea to the director of the Moscow Art Theater M.P. Arkadiev and was very skeptical about his promise to get the relevant materials. Arkadiev on March 31, 1936 informed Poskrebyshev about Bulgakov's proposal “to write a play about the underground, about the role of the Party and its leadership in the struggle for the triumph of communism” and argued that “the playwright wants to convey the feeling of the genius personality of comrade ... Stalin and the enthusiasm that the country feels at the mention of his name. " The director asked for "guidance on the possibility of such work, the implementation of which in the theater will be provided by political leadership." Permission then, immediately after the removal of "Moliere", of course, did not follow.

Later, on August 19, 1939, when the Batum venture collapsed, the playwright's wife recorded in her diary Bulgakov's words that “he has exact documents, that he conceived this play in early 1936, when he was about to appear to light and "Moliere", and "Pushkin", and "Ivan Vasilievich". I think Bulgakov here honestly outlined the context in which he decided to create a play about Stalin. Indeed, at that moment, three of his plays were about to appear on the stage of leading theaters. Mikhail Afanasyevich seriously hoped to take the place of one of the most popular playwrights in the country. The creation of a play about the leader could finally strengthen Bulgakov's position, save him from material worries, from the service in the Moscow Art Theater that took a lot of expensive time, but did not bring creative satisfaction. In addition, such a play could be seen as a form of gratitude to Stalin, who allowed the previously disgraced playwright to return to the stage with his plays. Bulgakov dreamed that if Moliere and his other plays were successful, he would be able to devote himself entirely to the work on the novel The Master and Margarita, which he realized as the main work of his life.

The blow with the ban on Moliere turned out to be especially difficult for Bulgakov. Hopes for staging new plays disappeared, and with it the need to write a play about Stalin. This idea was revived only in the fall of 1938, when, on the eve of Stalin's sixtieth anniversary, the Art Theater wanted to acquire a jubilee play. On September 9, the head of the Moscow Art Theater P.A. came to Bulgakov. Markov and his assistant V.Ya. Vilenkin. Complaining that the theater is in crisis, suffocating from the lack of modern plays, Markov as if casually asked: "You wanted to write a play on the theme of Stalin?" Elena Sergeevna conveyed Bulgakov's answer in the following way: “Misha replied that it is very difficult with the materials, they are needed, but where to get it? They offered to get the materials through the theater, and that Nemirovich wrote a letter to Joseph Vissarionovich asking for the material. Misha said - it is very difficult, although I already see a lot of things from this play. He refused the letter from Nemirovich. As long as there is no play on the table, there is nothing to talk or ask for. "

Nevertheless, Bulgakov, without waiting for help, began to collect material literally the next day. On September 10, Pravda published an article on the history of the CPSU (b), which emphasized the importance of the workers' demonstration organized by Stalin in Batum in March 1902 (a clipping with this article was preserved in the Bulgakov archive). Obviously, it was precisely his acquaintance with this article that prompted the playwright to turn to this episode of Stalin's biography. Moreover, he soon got his hands on a solid source - a luxurious gift book "The Batumi Demonstration of 1902", published by the Partizdat for the 35th anniversary, in 1937, with a foreword by the head of the Transcaucasian Communists L.P. Beria. Here one could find memoirs of Stalin's comrades-in-arms in the Batumi underground, Iskra's articles about the events in Batum, as well as police documents about the shooting of the demonstration and the trial of its leaders. Here, probably, lies the answer to the question of why Bulgakov turned to the Batumi period of Stalin's biography. After all, the events associated with Stalin's participation in the 1917 revolution and the civil war, as well as post-revolutionary activities, have long been the object of mythologization and could be described, both in historical works and in works of art, only within strictly defined canonical schemes. But the early years of Stalin's biography had just come to the attention of party propagandists. Here the canon had not yet had time to settle down, and this circumstance promised the playwright a relatively large creative freedom. In addition, the collection devoted to the Batumi demonstration contained materials from both camps, both revolutionary and anti-revolutionary, which at first could create an illusion of objectivity in Bulgakov. Yes, and Stalin himself of those years, apparently, at first seemed to be a sincere young revolutionary who strove to improve the life of the people and was not yet guilty of other crimes besides the struggle against the autocracy. The author of "Batum" probably hoped that it would be possible to write a play about the leader, showing the main character in the most favorable light and without compromising the truth. All the more bitter was the disappointment on closer acquaintance with the same book "The Batumi Demonstration".

From the book Stalin and the writers Book two the author Sarnov Benedict Mikhailovich

STALIN AND BULGAKOV

From the book Stalin without lies. The antidote to the "liberal" infection the author Pykhalov Igor Vasilievich

Chapter 5. “The Cowardly Tyrant” “Stalin was a terrible coward, a pathological coward," Victor Astafyev categorically declares. "By the way, is Stalin a coward? - the defector Boris Bazhanov thoughtfully reflects. - It is very difficult to answer this question. Throughout Stalin's life, it is impossible

From the book The Black Book of Communism: Crimes. Terror. Repression author Bartoshek Karel

An exemplary tyrant Both Stalin and Mao left such a strong personal imprint on their regimes that immediately after their death, serious changes began, primarily concerning the scale of repression. Is it possible, by analogy with Stalinism and Maoism, to talk about

From the book A Short Course in Stalinism the author Borev Yuri Borisovich

STALIN AND BULGAKOV In 1944, in the house of my friend Arkady Kesler, I met and then sometimes met with a young man of about twenty-two? twenty three. He was either an actor of the Moscow Art Theater, or a student at the Moscow Art Theater School. He was experiencing some acting failures and, according to

From the book History of Poisoning author Collard Frank

Nero, the tyrant-poisoner Nero became the personification of tyranny, he was equally cursed by both the Roman authors of the times of the Flavians and Antonines, and Christian writers, who also paid attention to persecution on a religious basis. It is quite clear that the great-grandson of August

From the book Without Moscow the author Lurie Lev Yakovlevich

Poet, tyrant, spy From the third dedication to Akhmatov's “Poem Without a Hero”: “I’m completely freezing with fear, I’d better click Chacon Bach, And a man will enter after her ... He will not become my dear husband, But we will deserve such a thing, That will be embarrassed The twentieth century". Didn't become a "sweet husband"

From the book Crusades. Medieval Wars for the Holy Land author Esbridge Thomas

ZANGI - THE TIRANT OF THE EAST Earlier there was a popular opinion that a qualitative shift in the attitude of Muslims towards Utremer occurred after the rise of the Turkish despot Zangi in 1128. This year has certainly brought about a change in Middle East politics. It started with death

From the book of Muscovy under Ivan the Terrible through the eyes of foreigners by Fletcher Giles

Tyrant - Interpreter of Dreams One son of a noble man was held in prison. Since the prison was already tired of the unfortunate man, then, wishing to enter into the mercy of the tyrant, he invented that he had a dream, that the Polish king was captured and brought before the tyrant. He ordered to call the prisoner from

From the book Knight of the past ... Paul the First and the Freemasons the author Bashilov Boris

XVI. "For us, he was not a tyrant, but a father" Emperor Paul had already been lying in a coffin with his face covered with muslin for two days, when a courier who arrived from Paris brought to the foreign minister the following letter from the French foreign minister, Prince Talleyrand. "Monsieur Count! Courier Neumann, who

From the book History of the Byzantine Emperors. From Justin to Theodosius III the author Alexey M. Velichko

Chapter 1. Tyrant and Executioner Our story does not pretend to be called "History of the Byzantine Empire." Therefore, we are not obliged to indulge in a detailed description of the time of the reign of a man who is perhaps the only one among all the Byzantine emperors,

From the book of Nero by Sizek Eugene

Emperor and Tyrant Dichotomy dominated thought about morality and morals in the 1st century. It is at the same time the foundation and completion of the infrastructure of the other couple - the politics of the emperor and the tyrant, which adapts and changes, making it the most moral. The point is that

From the book Socrates: teacher, philosopher, warrior the author Stadnichuk Boris

Not the worst tyrant Since the days of the ancient Greeks, the meaning of the word "tyrant" has changed significantly. For us, this is primarily an emotional characteristic - and not only of the ruler, but also of any person who is inclined to impose his will on those around him.

From the book Petersburg arabesques the author Aspidov Albert Pavlovich

In the house of Major Tyran In the 18th century, Russia, with its endless expanses and unlimited possibilities, was attractive to residents of neighboring countries. In close Europe, incredible stories were told about careers made in Russia and acquired fortunes. Heard about

From the book Blind Stalinism. Slander of the XX Congress by Ferr Grover

Chapter 5 Stalin and the war "Ignored" warnings Vorontsov's report German defector Executed generals of the Red Army "Prostration" of Stalin in the first days of the war Stalin is a "worthless" commander 1942: the disaster near Kharkov

Hello, Joseph Vissarionovich. - We received your letter. We read it with comrades. You will have a favorable answer on it ... Or maybe it’s true - you are asking to go abroad? What, are you really tired of us?

The author of The Master and Margarita is one of the most mysterious figures in our cultural history. Today Anews wants to understand in more detail the fate of Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov. Did mysticism take place in his life? How did the writer fight drug addiction? And what role did Joseph Stalin play in his fate?

Do-it-yourself drug addiction and abortion

One of the main "scandalous" aspects of Bulgakov's biography is his passion for drugs. Indeed, the writer had this bad habit, and acquired it quite early - in 1913, while studying to be a doctor, he tried cocaine.

But the use of morphine really seriously affected Bulgakov's health. A doctor by profession, he came to practice in the village of Nikolskoye, Smolensk province, and one day in the summer of 1917 he received a baby with diphtheria. Trying to save the child, Bulgakov cut his throat and sucked diphtheria films through the tube. And then, to be on the safe side, I injected myself with an anti-diphtheria vaccine. The action of the vaccine caused itching and severe pain - to relieve them, the young doctor began to use morphine injections.

They managed to get rid of the pain, but addiction became the price for it. It is also believed that the writer had a hard time living in the wilderness and took drugs out of boredom. Bulgakov did not believe in dependence, arguing that a doctor cannot become a drug addict thanks to his knowledge.

A few months later, the writer began to have withdrawal symptoms and fits of insanity, during which he chased his wife with a revolver, demanding to bring a dose.

Because of this, Bulgakov began to try to get rid of addiction, smoking cigarettes with opium and reducing the dose. His wife Tatyana Lappa also helped him, secretly diluting morphine with distilled water, gradually increasing its ratio to the drug.

Her husband's problems doomed Tatyana to truly terrible tests. Writer Yuri Vorobyevsky, author of the book "Unknown Bulgakov", said:

“Tatyana Nikolaevna, Bulgakov’s first wife, recalled how she told her husband about the pregnancy. He replied: “On Thursday I will carry out the operation. I am a doctor and I know what kind of children morphine addicts have. " True, he had not yet had to do such operations. Before pulling on his gloves, he leafed through the medical reference book for a long time. The operation took a long time. The wife understood: something went wrong. "I will never have children now," she thought dully.

Tatyana, who had her first abortion back in 1913, really no longer had children. As, however, they did not appear at Bulgakov, who parted with his faithful companion, who lived with him in the legendary "bad apartment", in 1924. Then the writer was carried away by the stylish and relaxed socialite Lyubov Belozerskaya, who at first even offered the spouses to live together, to which Lappa responded with an indignant refusal. Belozerskaya married the writer, but after 6 years a divorce followed - it is believed that the bright woman did not pay much attention to her husband's comfort.

For a long time, it was believed that by the early 1920s the writer had succeeded in defeating his addiction to drugs, but in 2015 a group of scientists from Israel and Italy analyzed 127 randomly selected pages of the original manuscript of The Master and Margarita. On old paper, they found significant traces of morphine, ranging from 2 to 100 nanograms per square centimeter.

The page with the most morphine contains a narrative outline that the author has reworked more than once. This find suggested that in last years life the writer returned to the addiction to death.

Gravestone, fire and Gogol's ghost

In popular memory, the figure of Bulgakov is traditionally shrouded in a mystical veil. One of the legends is connected precisely with the drug addiction of the writer and includes another outstanding writer - Nikolai Gogol.

In his diary, Bulgakov wrote how, tormented by another withdrawal, he suddenly saw "A short, sharp-nosed man with small crazy eyes"- he bent over the bed of the sufferer and angrily threatened him with a finger.

It is believed that the described newcomer was Gogol, and that after his visit, drug addiction began to rapidly subside.

Naturally, the legends connect Bulgakov with the characters of The Master and Margarita - and in particular, with the cat Behemoth.

According to one of the stories, the Behemoth had a real prototype - only not a cat, but a dog with the same nickname. He was so smart that once on New Year after the chimes, he barked 12 times, although no one taught him this.

True, reliable evidence is called the prototypes of a magical animal, nevertheless, cats - a domestic kitten of the Bulgakov family, Flyushka and Murr from Ernst Hoffmann's satirical novel "The Worldly Views of Murr the Cat".

Another story is related to the famous Behemoth phrase: "I'm not naughty, I'm not bothering anyone, I'm fixing a primus"... It is believed that once, when Bulgakov once again edited the episode with the quote, a fire suddenly started in the apartment on the floor above. Subsequently, when trying to find the source of the ignition, it turned out that it was the primus that had caught fire in the kitchen of the writer's neighbors.

The main "posthumous" story about Bulgakov is also associated with Gogol - this time the real one. The third wife of the writer Elena, in a letter to his brother Nicholas, wrote:

“I couldn’t find what I would like to see on Misha’s grave(deceased Bulgakov) - worthy of him. And then one day, when, as usual, I went into the workshop at the Novodevichy cemetery, I saw a block of granite deeply hidden in a hole.

The director of the workshop, in response to my question, explained that this was Golgotha ​​from Gogol's grave, taken from Gogol's grave, when a new monument was erected to him. At my request, with the help of an excavator, they lifted this block, brought it to Misha's grave and hoisted it up. You yourself understand how it fits to Misha's grave - Golgotha ​​from the grave of his beloved writer Gogol. "

Bulgakov and Stalin

Relations with the "Father of Nations" became a special part of Bulgakov's biography.

Experts describe them as very controversial. On the one hand, Stalin several times spoke very coldly about the works of Bulgakov, who never particularly concealed his negative attitude towards the revolution and the Soviet system. The head of the USSR called the play "Running" "A manifestation of an attempt to arouse pity, if not sympathy, for some strata of anti-Soviet emigre", aspiration "To justify or semi-justify the White Guard case"... As for the play Days of the Turbins, based on the novel The White Guard, Stalin said: "An anti-Soviet phenomenon," but added: “Why are Bulgakov's plays so often staged on the stage? Because, it must be, there are not enough of their own plays suitable for staging. Even the "Days of the Turbins" are fish without fish.

Even if people like Turbiny are forced to lay down their arms and submit to the will of the people, recognizing their cause as completely lost, then the Bolsheviks are invincible, nothing can be done with them, the Bolsheviks. The Days of the Turbins is a demonstration of the overwhelming power of Bolshevism. Of course, the author is in no way "guilty" of this demonstration. But what do we care about this? "

And then another facet of Stalin's attitude was revealed. On March 28, Bulgakov wrote a letter to the government, where he said that he was unable to print and cooperate with the theater in the USSR. “I ask you to take into account that the inability to write for me is tantamount to being buried alive”- concluded the writer and asked permission to travel abroad.

Already on April 18, a phone call rang in his apartment. In 1956, Elena Bulgakova made an entry in her diary from memory about her husband's story at that time:

“He went to bed after dinner, as usual, but immediately the phone rang, and Lyuba called him over, saying that they were asking from the Central Committee. Mikhail Afanasyevich did not believe it, decided that it was a joke (then it was done), and, disheveled, irritated, took up the receiver and heard:

- Mikhail Afanasyevich Bulgakov?

- Yes Yes.

- Comrade Stalin will speak to you now.

- What? Stalin? Stalin?

- Yes, Stalin is talking to you. Hello, Comrade Bulgakov (or Mikhail Afanasyevich - I don't remember exactly).

- Hello, Joseph Vissarionovich.

- We received your letter. We read it with comrades. You will have a favorable answer on it ... Or maybe it’s true - you are asking to go abroad? What, are you really tired of us?

Mikhail Afanasyevich said that he did not expect such a question so much (and he did not expect a call at all) - 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 it seems to me that it cannot.

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

- Yes, I wanted to. But I talked about it, and they turned me down.

- And you apply there. It seems to me that they will agree. We would need to meet, talk to you.

- Yes Yes! Joseph Vissarionovich, I really need to talk to you.

- Yes, you need to find time and be sure to meet. And now I wish you all the best. "

Bulgakov got a job at the Moscow Art Theater, the country's main drama theater, and subsequently did not experience the threat of poverty. Mass repressions of the second half of the 30s also bypassed the writer.

However, Bulgakov never received full recognition. Some of his plays were still banned from performances, a personal meeting with Stalin did not take place, and he was never allowed to travel abroad.

The writer made his last attempt to find a dialogue with the authorities and society in 1939, writing the play "Batum", dedicated to Stalin's youth - it was believed that the need for such a production would arise on the 60th anniversary of the head of the USSR. Along the way, Bulgakov most likely cherished the hope that the success of the play would help the publication of the main work of his life - the novel The Master and Margarita.

Preliminary demonstrations of the play, including in front of party officials, went very well. Elena Bulgakova wrote to her mother:

“Mom, dear, has long been going to write to you, but she was madly busy. Misha finished and handed over the play to the Moscow Art Theater ... He was devilishly tired, the work was intense, he had to finish it on time. But the fatigue was good - the work was terribly interesting. By all accounts, this is a great stroke of luck. There were several readings - two official and others - in our apartment, and it is always a great success. "

Bulgakov took what happened extremely hard. He said to his wife: “It’s bad for me, Lyusenka. He(Stalin) he signed me a death warrant. "

"Misha, as long as there is enough strength, the novel rules, I rewrite"

According to the recollections of relatives, from that moment on, the writer's health began to deteriorate sharply, and his eyesight began to fade. Doctors diagnosed hypertensive nephrosclerosis - kidney disease.

“And suddenly Kreshkov(common-law husband) shows the newspaper: Bulgakov died. Arrived(to Moscow), came to Lele(to the writer's sister). She told me everything, and that he called me before he died ... Of course, I would have come. I was terribly worried then. I went to the grave ”.

The novel The Master and Margarita, on the other hand, lay on the shelf for more than a quarter of a century and was first published in the November 1966 issue of the Moscow magazine.