American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages

Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita. The Text as Cipher by Elena N. MahlowReview by: Ellendea ProfferThe Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Winter, 1976), pp. 484-485Published by: American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European LanguagesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/305908 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 21:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages is collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavic and East European Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:41:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

484 Slavic and East European Journal

Russia's Lost Literature. If Xarms is now taking his place in post-revolutionary litera- ture, we should know as much as possible about where he fits.

The quality of Xarms' works is uneven. This new edition makes more of his worthwhile writing available. Professor Gibian's work as editor and as commentator is to be appreciated. Xarms' writings, along with others unpublished until recently, are changing our view of literature in the Soviet period. His affinities to other writers and artists of his time and to Russians and non-Russians both before and after (from Koz'ma Prutkov to Beckett) deserve attention. How the contemporary reader would have reacted to him can only be surmised. The OBERIU Manifesto, written principally by Zabolockij, expresses agreement with the Proletarians' goal of a universally intelli- gible art and declares the Oberiuty on the correct path toward a new culture. Not all of Xarms is easily comprehensible, and some of his works may not reward efforts to understand them. Xarms' present and future readers, however, should give him more thoughtful consideration than the imagined Reader of whom he was so apprehensive.

Carol A vins, North western University

Elena N. Mahlow. Bulgakov's The Master And Margarita. The Text As Cipher. New York: Vantage Press, 1975. 202 pp., $6.50.

It is sometimes dangerous to bring too rigid a theory to the study of a work of litera- ture. This analysis of Bulgakov's difficult novel is a case in point. While Ms. Mahlow has done a great deal of close reading, she chooses to explain the mystifying features she isolates by means of a restrictive theory which is simply not flexible enough to cover all the problems. She puts forth her basic theory early in her book:

The central idea of the story represents the following structural layout. In Soviet Rus- sia of the Stalinist period three dictatorships exist: the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the dictatorship of the idea of the proletariat, represented by Hegemon Pilate; the dictatorship of a person, i.e., the personal dictatorship of Stalin, represented by Caesar; and the dictatorship of a party, i.e., the dictatorship of the Communist Party, repre- sented by the High Priest Caiaphas. (1.)

That this theory does a great disservice to Bulgakov's art is apparent; that it does little to clarify his novel may be less obvious. The matter is complicated by the fact that Ms. Mahlow does point out certain things which are undeniably true: the role of the intelligentsia in Russian history is indeed one of Bulgakov's favorite themes; the candelabra in front of the temple in Jerusalem does have the wrong number of branches-five instead of the obligatory seven. Mahlow's explanation for the last- that the five branches are meant to parallel the five ruby stars atop the Kremlin-is quite believable, but her further deduction-that this is related to Pilate's being the symbol of the dictatorship of the proletariat-borders on the preposterous.

To illustrate how this theory distorts, let us examine the explanation why Bulga- kov gives us the information that Pilate is the fifth procurator of Judea (a historical fact, as the author admits):

One such device is Pilate's being the fifth procurator of Judea, which is information not in the Bible, but is found in reference sources. The fifth procurator of Judea represents the fifth period of Russian history, the period of Soviet Russia, which was preceded by the Russia of Kiev, the Russia of the Tartar period, the Russia of Moscow,

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:41:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 485

and the Russia of Peter. Thus, the "fifth Procurator of Judea, Pontious Pilate" signifies the fifth Russia, the Soviet Russia of the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. (6.)

We are not told by Ms. Mahlow why there is such a large gap between the "Russia of Peter" and "Soviet Russia"-surely the nineteenth century, which figures so impor- tantly elsewhere in her study, should count for something. This quote is complete. The reader is forced to notice that flat statements are not supported. The author mistakes her assertions for proof.

One of the major flaws of this study is that the author insists on explaining much of the novel's imagery by means of this theory, whether the imagery in question was used by Bulgakov in much earlier (pre-Stalin) works or not. In fact, much of what she interprets as specific political allegory is clearly part of Bulgakov's own symbolic system, imagery which runs throughout all his works. This is understandable, since Ms. Mahlow demonstrates virtually no knowledge of Bulgakov's oeuvre, and only a superficial acquaintance with the criticism now available. This is not to deny that one may have a theory without extensive knowledge of a writer's works; theories may occasionally reveal things more scholarly approaches cannot discover. But this book's theory is overly ingenious and results in more confusion than clarification. Even so simple a detail as Matthew's age is given incredible significance:

When Matthew meets Pilate he is forty years old, which corresponds to forty years of the twentieth century (1900-1940). The development of the encounter begins with the theme of the knife, which signifies Protest, the spirit bound up with liberty. (65.)

What significance Matthew's age has is something that is never revealed. As can be seen from these examples (there are many more), Mahlow's approach

leaves no room for chance or inspiration in the artist's make-up. Bulgakov's Pilate chapters are X-rayed to show the supposed allegorical skeleton within. This is done to a writer who made fun of simple allegory in his other works, and who was fond of putting in personal friends and enemies, not to mention objects (Mahlow goes on at length about the significance of the Master's cap with an "M" sewn on, when actually Bulgakov was simply putting in his very own cap). Mahlow's literary sensitivity leads to such assertions as "Berlioz's first name and patronymic are devices." She goes on to say that the first name, Mixail, "points to Mikhail Bakunin," and the patronymic, Aleksandr, "points to Aleksandr Radishchev." This is close reading with a vengeance.

Ms. Mahlow has found some interesting paradoxes in the novel which have caused many scholars trouble, but such statements as "the moonlight road is the road of democracy," with no documentation to support them, render much of this book useless, or, in the hands of the credulous reader, dangerously misleading. What the author is describing is not a work of art, but a theosophical-political diagram.

Ellendea Proffer, Russian Literature Triquarterly

Hrop TqhHHHOB. (oIacTopaaH>>. IIapHna: PWiiMa. 1976. 112 cTp. (paper).

Now we have another collection of verse by Igor Chinnov, bearing, as the others have, a one-word musical title. This new collection includes forty poems from his second book of verse, Linii (1960), just as his fifth and previous collection, Kompozicija (1972), included selected poems from his first, Monolog (1950). This methodology provides access to the older, hard-to-obtain works, thereby enabling one to gain

This content downloaded from 62.122.73.177 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:41:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions