Artist and Power: Reception of M. Bulgakov&#x27;s Novels and A. Tarkovsky&#x27;s Films in Soviet Artistic Culture
Authors: Khrenov N.A. 
Published: November 2024

The article attempts to explain why so much attention is paid to the character named Woland in M. Bulgakov&#x27;s novel &quot;The Master and Margarita&quot;. It is known that the primary role of this character was already evidenced by the concept of the novel and the initial stage of work on it. According to documents, Woland&#x27;s name was already included in the title. Woland is Satan, the Devil, the Antichrist, in general, the creator and bearer of the elements of evil. This is how he appears already in the Apocalypse of the Apostle John. The appeal to the apocalypse makes M. Bulgakov related to A. Tarkovsky. There are points of contact between these authors on this issue. The names of Satan may change, but his function as the bearer of evil is preserved. History knows of eras when this image was not so significant and there were times when it acquired an exaggerated meaning. The 20th century as a century of real movement towards freedom in the form of revolutions (as the philosophers of the Enlightenment were convinced of) gives rise to an increased interest in Satan, including in art. The rehabilitation of Satan by Charles Baudelaire in the 19th century had an effect among Russian symbolists of the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. But, as it turned out, even Lermontov’s poem about the demon anticipated some of F. Nietzsche’s ideas. However, perhaps, the increased interest in Satan was initially connected with philosophy, as evidenced by V. Solovyov’s treatise “Three Conversations on War, Progress, and the End of World History, with the Inclusion of a Short Story about the Antichrist and with Appendices.” In relation to V. Solovyov, it is impossible to speak simply of an increase in interest in the traditional attitude towards Satan. His ideas can be seen as a revision of the traditional image. V. Solovyov returned to such a vision of Satan, which is associated with the Gnostic doctrine as the basis for an alternative interpretation of the Gospel images, including the image of the Antichrist. But the point is not only that in this doctrine the devil is transformed into a god not of good, as is the case in Christianity, but of evil. V. Solovyov&#x27;s innovation in interpreting the image of Satan is associated with another pressing problem in world history, namely, the confrontation between the European world and the East, which continues to worry humanity. V. Solovyov is convinced that pan-Mongolism still poses a danger to the world. And it is all the more real, the more obvious the internal discord between the European states, to which Russia also belongs. V. Solovyov&#x27;s interpretation is directed not to the past, but to the future. The philosopher himself in this sense appears as a prophet. Another outstanding commentator on the Revelation of John the Theologian, M. Bulgakov, does not touch on this issue, being interested in the complex relationship between good and evil. This thought, read in his novel, as shown in the article, is of an autobiographical nature. But, despite the dissimilarity in the interpretation of Satan as an image, interest in which is growing in the twentieth century, a deeper interpretation of the image of Satan in M. Bulgakov’s novel is impossible without returning to the Apocalypse in its various versions and, above all, to the Christian version. The autobiographical moment in the interpretation of evil in M. Bulgakov’s novel is a particular moment in his anti-totalitarian worldview. And the anti-totalitarian interpretation of symbols is already present, as S. Bulgakov proved, in the text and images of the Apocalypse. M. Bulgakov evaluates the events of the revolution and civil war in his first novel, The White Guard, turning to apocalyptic images. Interpretation of the last and main novel, The Master and Margarita, is also impossible without the meanings that are present in the Apocalypse. Much has been written about the nature of totalitarianism in literature. However, it was M. Bulgakov, who relied on apocalyptic archetypes in his assessments, who managed to present an adequate understanding of totalitarianism and fit the problematic of evil into such an interpretation. The writer&#x27;s appeal to the Revelation of the Apostle John allows us to understand that the phenomenon, hitherto designated as &quot;Leviathan&quot;, like the &quot;cultural heroes&quot; representing it, are capable of appearing as both bearers of good and bearers of evil.