Michael Bulgakov
Days of the Turbins
Play in four acts
Characters
TUR BIN ALEKSEY VASILIEVICH – artillery colonel, 30 years old.
T u r b i n N i k o l a i - his brother, 18 years old.
TALBERG ELENA VASILEVNA – their sister, 24 years old.
T a l b erg Vladimir R o b e r t o v i c h – Colonel of the General Staff, her husband, 38 years old.
Myshlaevskiy Viktor Viktorovich – staff captain, artilleryman, 38 years old.
Shervinsky Leonid Yuryevich - lieutenant, personal adjutant of the hetman.
Studzinskiy A l e x a n d r B r o n i s l a v o v i c h – captain, 29 years old.
L ari o s i k - Zhytomyr cousin, 21 years old.
Hetman of Ukraine.
Bolbotun - commander of the 1st Petlyura Cavalry Division.
Galanba is a Petliurist centurion, a former Uhlan captain.
Hurricane.
K ir p a t y.
Von Schratt - German general.
F o n D u s t - German major.
GERMAN DOCTOR.
D e s e r t i r -s e c h e v i k.
HUMAN BASKET.
C a m e r l a k e y.
M aks i m - gymnasium teacher, 60 years old.
Gaidamak is a telephone operator.
FIRST OFFICER.
SECOND OFFICER.
T h i r d o f i c e r.
F irst junkers.
Second junker.
T h i r d u n k e r.
Y u n k e r a i g a i d a m a k i.
The first, second and third acts take place in the winter of 1918, the fourth act in early 1919.
The location is the city of Kyiv.
Act one
Scene one
Turbins' apartment. Evening. There's a fire in the fireplace. When the curtain opens, the clock strikes nine times and Boccherini's minuet is played tenderly.
Alexey bent over the papers.
N i k o l k a (plays guitar and sings).
Worse rumors every hour:
Petlyura is coming at us!
We loaded the machine guns,
We fired at Petliura,
Machine gunners-chick-chick...
Darlings...
You helped us out, well done.
Alexei. God knows what you're eating! Cook's songs. Sing something decent.
N i k o l k a. Why cooks? I composed this myself, Alyosha. (Sings.)
Sing whether you like or not,
Your voice is not like that!
There are such voices...
Your hair will stand on end...
Alexei. This is exactly what your voice is about. N i k o l k a. Alyosha, this is in vain, by God! I have a voice, although not the same as Shervinsky’s, but still quite decent. Dramatic, most likely a baritone. Helen, oh Helen! What kind of voice do you think I have?
Elena (from his room). Who? At your place? There is none.
N i k o l k a. She was upset, that’s why she answered like that. And by the way, Alyosha, my singing teacher told me: “You,” he says, “Nikolai Vasilyevich, in essence, could sing in opera, if not for the revolution.”
Alexei. Your singing teacher is a fool.
N i k o l k a. I knew it. A complete breakdown of nerves in the Turbine house. The singing teacher is a fool. I don’t have a voice, and yesterday I still had one, and in general I’m pessimistic. And I, by nature, am more inclined to optimism. (Touches the strings.) Although you know, Alyosha, I’m starting to worry myself. It’s already nine o’clock, and he said he’ll come in the morning. Has something happened to him?
Alexei. Keep your voice down. Understood?
N i k o l k a. Here is the commission, creator, to be a married sister's brother.
Elena (from his room). What time is it in the dining room?
N i k o l k a. Uh... nine. Our hours are ahead, Lenochka.
Elena (from his room). Please don't make it up.
N i k o l k a. Look, he's worried. (Humming.) Foggy... Oh, how foggy everything is!..
Alexei. Don't break my soul, please. Sing merry.
N i k o l k a (sings).
Hello, summer residents!
Hello, summer residents!
We started filming a long time ago...
Hey, my song!.. Beloved!..
Glug-glug-glug, bottle
State wine!!.
Tonneau caps,
Shaped boots,
Then the cadet guards are coming...
The electricity suddenly goes out. Outside the windows a military unit passes by singing.
Alexei. The devil knows what it is! It goes out every minute. Helen, please give me some candles.
Elena (from his room). Yes Yes!..
Alexei. Some part has passed.
Elena, coming out with a candle, listens. Distant cannon strike.
N i k o l k a. How close. The impression is as if they were shooting near Svyatoshin. I wonder what's going on there? Alyosha, maybe you’ll send me to find out what’s going on at headquarters? I would go.
Alexei. Of course, you are still missing. Please sit still.
N i k o l k a. I’m listening, Mr. Colonel... Actually, because, you know, inaction... it’s a little offensive... People are fighting there... At least our division was more ready.
Alexei. When I need your advice in preparing a division, I will tell you myself. Understood?
N i k o l k a. Understood. It's my fault, Mr. Colonel.
Electricity flashes.
Elena. Alyosha, where is my husband?
Alexei. He'll come, Lenochka.
Elena. But how can this be? He said he would come in the morning, but now it’s nine o’clock and he’s still not there. Has something already happened to him?
Alexei. Helen, well, of course, this can’t be. You know that the line to the west is guarded by the Germans.
Elena. But why is he still not there?
Alexei. Well, obviously, they are at every station.
N i k o l k a. Revolutionary riding, Lenochka. You drive for an hour and stand for two.
Well, here he is, I told you so! (Runs to open the door.) Who's there?
N i k o l k a (let Myshlaevsky into the hallway). Is it you, Vitenka?
Myshlaevsky. Well, of course I would be crushed! Nikol, take the rifle, please. Behold, mother of the devil!
Elena. Victor, where are you from?
Myshlaevsky. From under the Red Tavern. Hang it carefully, Nikol. There is a bottle of vodka in my pocket. Don't break it. Let me spend the night, Lena, I won’t make it home, I’m completely frozen.
Elena. Oh, my God, of course! Go quickly to the fire.
They go to the fireplace.
Myshlaevsky. Oh oh oh...
Alexei. Why couldn’t they give you felt boots, or what?
Myshlaevsky. Felt boots! These are such bastards! (Rushes towards the fire.)
Elena. Here's what: the bathtub is heated now, you undress him as quickly as possible, and I'll prepare his underwear. (Leaves.)
Myshlaevsky. Darling, take it off, take it off, take it off...
N i k o l k a. Now. (Takes off Myshlaevsky’s boots.)
Myshlaevsky. Easier, brother, oh, easier! I should like to drink some vodka, some vodka.
Director: Ilya Sudakov
Artist: Nikolay Ulyanov
Artistic director of the production - Konstantin Sergeevich Stanislavsky
Nikolay Khmelev - Alexey Turbin
Mikhail Yanshin - Lariosik
Vera Sokolova - Elena
Mark Prudkin - Shervinsky
Victor Stanitsyn - Von Schratt
Evgeny Kaluzhsky - Studzinsky
Ivan Kudryavtsev - Nikolka
Boris Dobronravov - Myshlaevsky
Vsevolod Verbitsky - Talberg
Vladimir Ershov - Getman
The performance enjoyed great audience success, but after devastating reviews in the then press in April 1929, “Days of the Turbins” was removed from the repertoire. In February 1936, the Moscow Art Theater staged his new play “The Cabal of the Holy One” (“Molière”), but due to a sharply critical article in Pravda, the performance was canceled in March, having managed to be sold out seven times.
But, despite the accusations against the author, who was accused of having a bourgeois mood, on Stalin’s instructions, the play “Days of the Turbins” was restored and entered the classical repertoire of the theater. For the writer, a production at the Moscow Art Theater was perhaps the only opportunity to support his family. In total, the play was performed on the stage of the Moscow Art Theater 987 times between 1926 and 1941. It is known that Stalin watched this performance several times. Subsequently, contemporaries even actively argued how many times the leader watched it. Writer Viktor Nekrasov wrote: “It is known that Stalin watched the play “Days of the Turbins” based on the play by M. Bulgakov... 17 times! Not three, not five, not twelve, but seventeen! But he was, one must think, a busy man after all, and he didn’t indulge theaters that much with his attention, he loved cinema... but something in “The Turbins” captivated him and he wanted to watch, hiding behind the curtain of the government box.” (Nekrasov V. Notes of an onlooker. M., 1991).
a small remark about Nekrasov’s “loved cinema”))
- How many times did Stalin visit the Bolshoi Theater, just go to performances? loved opera. And the last performance he watched - Swan Lake - was on February 27, 1953.
and in Maly? he never missed a single premiere.
and the music?
Published according to the specified edition.
Bulgakov's handwritten legacy of the 1920s. turned out to be extremely scarce: most of his works from this time have been preserved in printed or typewritten (plays) form. Apparently, the writer himself, being in difficult conditions, did not attach much importance to his draft autographs, and E. S. Bulgakova, who reverently treated the writer’s manuscripts and sought to preserve his every line, was not next to him. Therefore, difficulties often arise when reconstructing the history of writing works of the 1920s. The play “Days of the Turbins” (“The White Guard”) is no exception in this sense: draft autographs have not survived. But three typewritten editions of it have survived. It was the three editions of the play that the author himself spoke about in a conversation with P. S. Popov, who documented the content of this and other conversations. So, Bulgakov noted that “the play has three editions. The second edition is closest to the first; the third is the most different” (OR RSL, f. 218, no. 1269, archive unit 6, l. 1, 3). Let's remember these author's instructions and move on to a brief history of writing the play.
Bulgakov excellently depicted how the idea for the play arose in “Notes of a Dead Man.” We will quote only a few lines from this text.
“A blizzard woke me up one day. It was March and the storm was raging, although it was already coming to an end. And again... I woke up in tears!.. And again the same people, and again a distant city, and the side of a piano, and shots, and someone else defeated in the snow.
These people were born in dreams, came out of dreams and settled firmly in my cell. It was clear that there was no way to separate from them. But what to do with them?
At first I simply talked with them, and yet I had to take the book of the novel out of the box. Then in the evenings it began to seem to me that something colored was emerging from the white page. Looking closely, squinting, I was convinced that this was a picture. And what’s more, this picture is not flat, but three-dimensional. It’s like a box, and you can see through the lines: the light is on and the very same figures that are described in the novel are moving in it. Oh, what an exciting game it was... I could play this game all my life, looking at the page... But how would I capture these figures?.. And one night I decided to describe this magic camera... Therefore, I write: the first picture... I spent three nights playing with the first picture, and by the end of that night I realized that I was composing a play. In the month of April, when the snow disappeared from the yard, the first picture was developed... At the end of April, Ilchin’s letter arrived...”
Perhaps this is how it really happened, but from the surviving documents it is clear that Bulgakov made the first draft of the play on January 19, 1925. This is clear from his own handwritten entry in the album on the history of “The Days of the Turbins” (IRLI, f. 362, No. 75 , l. 1). And Bulgakov apparently received a letter from B.I. Vershilov (Art Theater Studio) dated April 3, 1925, not at the end of April, but earlier.
It so happened that Bulgakov was given two offers at once to stage the novel “The White Guard”: from the Art Theater and the Vakhtangov Theater (see: Yanovskaya L. The creative path of Mikhail Bulgakov. M., 1983. pp. 141-142). To the chagrin of the Vakhtangov students, Bulgakov chose the Moscow Art Theater, but consoled the former by writing “Zoyka’s Apartment” for them.
Bulgakov worked on the first edition of the play in June-August 1925, but with interruptions (from June 12 to July 7, the Bulgakovs visited the Voloshins in Koktebel). There are colorful author’s sketches about this in the same “Notes of a Dead Man.” For example, these: “I don’t remember how May ended. June has been erased from my memory, but I remember July. It was unusually hot. I sat naked, wrapped in a sheet, and composed a play. The further it went, the more difficult it became... The heroes grew... and they were not going to leave anywhere, and events developed, but they did not see the end... Then the heat dropped... It started to rain, August came. Then I received a letter from Misha Panin. He asked about the play. I plucked up courage and stopped the flow of events at night. There were thirteen scenes in the play."
Lacking the necessary dramatic experience and trying to select as much of the most valuable material from the novel as possible, Bulgakov created a very large play, which differed little in content from the novel. The most difficult moment came - the play had to be thoroughly shortened. Let us turn again to the author’s text: “...I realized that my play cannot be played in one evening. The nightly torment associated with this issue led to me crossing out one picture. This... did not save the situation... Something else had to be thrown out of the play, but what is unknown. Everything seemed important to me... Then I drove one character out, which is why one picture somehow became askew, then completely flew out, and there were eleven pictures. Further... I couldn’t shorten anything... Having decided that nothing further would come of it, I decided to leave the matter to its natural course...”
On August 15, 1925, the play “The White Guard” (first edition) was presented to the theater, and the first reading took place in September. However, already in October the situation with the play became more complicated due to a negative review received from A.V. Lunacharsky. On October 12, in a letter to V.V. Luzhsky, one of the leading actors and directors of the theater, he notes: “I carefully re-read the play “The White Guard.” I do not find anything unacceptable in it from a political point of view, but I cannot help but express to you my personal opinion. I think Bulgakov is a very talented person, but this play of his is extremely mediocre, with the exception of the more or less lively scene of the hetman’s abduction. Everything else is either military vanity or unusually ordinary, dull, dull pictures of unnecessary philistinism. there is not a single type, not a single interesting situation, and the end is directly outrageous not only for its uncertainty, but also for its complete ineffectiveness... Not a single average theater would accept this play precisely because of its dullness, which probably stems from complete dramatic weakness or extreme author's inexperience."
This letter requires some explanation, since it played a big role in the further fate of the play. The first phrase of A.V. Lunacharsky is extremely important: he does not see anything unacceptable in the play from a political point of view. Actually, this is the main thing that the theater required from him - whether the play passes the political parameters or not. The People's Commissar's negative review on this issue immediately closed the play's path to the stage. And what is important to note is that A.V. Lunacharsky did not further openly put forward political demands regarding the play, but at the last stage he showed integrity and supported the theater and Stanislavsky in resolving the issue of the play in the highest authorities.
Nor was his statement that he considered Bulgakov a talented person to be a formal act of politeness. Obviously, he was already familiar with many of the writer’s stories and stories, including “Fatal Eggs,” a story that tested the reader’s attitude towards him. As for the “mediocrity” of the play and other harsh remarks of A. V. Lunacharsky, one must keep in mind that the People’s Commissar himself wrote quite a lot of plays that were staged by some theaters, but were not successful (even Demyan Bedny publicly called them mediocre) . Therefore, an element of bias was undoubtedly present. But the first edition of the play really suffered from many shortcomings, and above all, its prolixity, which the author was well aware of.
The theater responded to the People's Commissar's comments immediately. On October 14, an emergency meeting of the repertoire and artistic board of the Moscow Art Theater was held, which adopted the following resolution: “Recognize that in order to be staged on the Big Stage, the play must be radically altered. On the Small Stage, a play can be performed after relatively minor alterations. Establish that if a play is staged on the Small Stage, it must be performed in the current season; the production on the Big Stage may be postponed until the next season. Talk about the stated resolutions with Bulgakov.”
Bulgakov reacted to such a “revolutionary” decision of the theater sharply, emotionally and concretely. The next day, October 15, he wrote a letter to V.V. Luzhsky, which contained ultimatum demands for the theater. However, this letter is so “Bulgakovian” that it is advisable, in our opinion, to reproduce it:
“Dear Vasily Vasilyevich.
Yesterday's meeting, which I had the honor to attend, showed me that the situation with my play is complicated. The question arose about the production on the Small Stage, about the next season and, finally, about a radical break in the play, bordering, in essence, on the creation of a new play.
While I willingly agree to some corrections in the process of working on the play together with the director, I at the same time do not feel able to write the play all over again.
The deep and harsh criticism of the play at yesterday's meeting made me significantly disappointed in my play (I welcome criticism), but did not convince me that the play should be performed on the Small Stage.
And finally, the question of the season can only have one solution for me: this season, not the next one.
Therefore, I ask you, dear Vasily Vasilyevich, to urgently put it up for discussion in the management and give me a categorical answer to the question:
Does the 1st Art Theater agree to include the following unconditional clauses in the contract regarding the play:
1. Production only on the Big Stage.
2. This season (March 1926).
3. Changes, but not a radical break in the core of the play.
If these conditions are unacceptable for the Theater, I will allow myself to ask permission to consider a negative answer as a sign that the play “The White Guard” is free” (MXAT Museum, No. 17452).
The theater's reaction was prompt, because both the actors and the directors liked the play. On October 16, the repertoire and artistic board of the Moscow Art Theater made the following decision: “It is considered possible to agree to the author’s demand regarding the nature of the reworking of the play and that it should be performed on the Big Stage” (see: Markov P. A. At the Art Theater. The book is filled. M ., 1976. Section “Materials and Documents”). This decision suited both the author and the theater, because it was a reasonable compromise. In his memoirs, P. A. Markov successfully formulated the problems that arose with the first edition of the play “The White Guard”: “M. A. Bulgakov, who later constructed plays masterfully, initially, in the staging of “The White Guard,” blindly followed the novel, and already in his work with the theater, a harmonious and clear theatrical composition of “Days of the Turbins” gradually emerged” (Markov L. A. S. 26) . On October 21, the initial distribution of roles took place...
Bulgakov understood perfectly well that the play must first of all be changed structurally, “shrinked.” Of course, it was impossible to do without losses. In addition, it was necessary to remove direct attacks against living leaders of the state from the text (the name of Trotsky was mentioned too often in the play). It took him more than two months to create a new edition of the play - the second. Later, dictating fragmentary biographical notes to P. S. Popov, Bulgakov said something valuable about the work on the play “The White Guard,” in particular, the following: “I merged the figure of Nai-Tours and Alexei in the play for greater clarity. Nai-Tours is a distant, abstract image. The ideal of Russian officers. What would a Russian officer be like in my opinion... I saw Skoropadsky once. This did not affect the creation of the image in the play. In Lariosik the images of three faces merged. The element of “Chekhovism” was in one of the prototypes... Dreams play an exceptional role for me... The scene in the gymnasium (in the novel) was written by me in one night... I visited the gymnasium building several times in 1918. On December 14 I was at streets of Kyiv. I experienced something close to what is in the novel...” (OR RSL, f. 218, no. 1269, item 6, l. 3-5).
The intensity with which Bulgakov worked on the second edition of the play can be judged by his letter to the writer S. Fedorchenko dated November 24, 1925: “...I am buried under a play with a sonorous title. There is only one shadow left of me, which can be shown as a free supplement to the said play” (Moscow. 1987. No. 8. P. 53).
In January 1926, Bulgakov presented the second edition of the play to the Art Theater. The text was revised and significantly shortened, from a five-act play to a four-act one. But, as the author himself noted, the second edition was very close to the first in content. According to many experts, this particular edition should be recognized as canonical, since it most closely corresponded to the author’s intentions. But this issue remains quite controversial for many reasons, which are more appropriate to discuss in special studies.
Real theatrical work began with the play, which many of its participants recalled with admiration. M. Yanshin (Lariosik): “All participants in the play felt so well with their own skin and nerves the events and life that Bulgakov described, the alarming and stormy time of the civil war was so close and vivid in their memory that the atmosphere of the play, its rhythm, the well-being of each character the plays were born as if by themselves, born from life itself” (The Director’s Mastery. M., 1956. P. 170). P. Markov: “When you return with memories of “The Days of the Turbins” and Bulgakov’s first appearance at the Art Theater, then these memories not only for me, but for all my comrades remain one of the best: it was the spring of the young Soviet Art Theater. After all, , to be honest, “Days of the Turbins” became a kind of new “Seagull” of the Art Theater... “Days of the Turbins” were born from the novel “The White Guard”. This huge novel was filled with the same explosive force that Bulgakov himself was full of.. . He not only attended rehearsals - he staged the play" (Memoirs of Mikhail Bulgakov. M., 1988. pp. 239-240).
The director of the performance was I. Sudakov. Alexei Turbin was rehearsed by Nikolai Khmelev, whose performance Stalin was later so captivated by, and the role of Myshlaevsky was prepared by B. Dobronravov. Young people were involved in rehearsals (M. Yanshin, E. Sokolova, M. Prudkin, I. Kudryavtsev, etc.), who later became a brilliant replacement for the great generation of actors of the past.
But all this was ahead, and in the spring of 1926, after intense rehearsals, the play (the first two acts) was shown to K. S. Stanislavsky. Here are dry but precise lines from the “Rehearsal Diary”:
"TO. S., having watched two acts of the play, said that the play was on the right track: he really liked “Gymnasium” and “Petliura Stage”. He praised some of the performers and considered the work done important, successful and necessary... K.S. inspired everyone to continue working at a fast, vigorous pace along the intended path” (Moscow. 1987. No. 8. P. 55). And here’s how it all seemed to the then head of the Moscow Art Theater Pavel Markov:
“Stanislavsky was one of the most direct spectators. At the screening of “The Turbins” he laughed openly, cried, closely followed the action, chewed his hand as usual, threw off his pince-nez, wiping away his tears with a handkerchief - in a word, he completely lived the performance” (Markov P.A.S. 229).
It was a short, happy time in the inner creative life of the Art Theater. K. S. Stanislavsky enthusiastically took part in the rehearsals of the play, and on his advice, some scenes of the play were staged (for example, the scene in the Turbino apartment, when the wounded Nikolka reports the death of Alexei). The great director remembered for a long time the time he worked with Bulgakov and then often characterized him as an excellent director and potential actor. So, on September 4, 1930, he wrote to Bulgakov himself: “Dear and dear Mikhail Afanasyevich! You can’t imagine how glad I am for you to join our theater! (This is after the pogrom carried out on the writer in 1928-1930! - V.L.). I only had to work with you at a few rehearsals of “The Turbins,” and then I felt in you a director (and maybe an artist?!).” In those same days, Stanislavsky, pointing out Bulgakov to the then director of the Moscow Art Theater M. S. Heitz , suggested: “He can make a director. He is not only a writer, but he is also an actor. I judge by the way he showed the actors at rehearsals of “The Turbins.” Actually, he staged them, or at least gave those sparkles that sparkled and created the success of the performance.” And a few years later, Stanislavsky, in a letter to director V. G. Sakhnovsky, argued that the entire “internal line” in the play “Days of the Turbins” belongs to Bulgakov (see: Bulgakov M. Diary. Letters. 1914-1940. M., 1997. P. 238; Yanovskaya L. The creative path of Mikhail Bulgakov. M., 1983. P. 167-168).
And one cannot fail to note another extremely important fact in the creative biography of the writer, about which for some reason nothing has been written anywhere. In March 1926, the Art Theater entered into an agreement with Bulgakov to stage “The Heart of a Dog”! Thus, the Moscow Art Theater decided to stage two plays by Bulgakov at once with the most acute content for that time. It can be assumed that it was precisely this fact (the contract for the staging of a banned unpublished story!) that attracted the attention of the bodies of political investigation and ideological control, and from that moment they began to interfere in the process of creating the play “The White Guard” (the contract for the staging of “Heart of a Dog” was canceled by mutual agreement of the author and the theater; there is no doubt that the reason for this was political).
On May 7, 1926, OGPU officers searched the Bulgakovs’ apartment and seized the manuscripts of “The Heart of a Dog” (!) and the writer’s diary, which was called “Under the Heel.” The search was preceded by extensive intelligence work, as a result of which Bulgakov was recognized as an extremely dangerous figure from a political point of view.
In connection with this, the task was set to prevent the staging of Bulgakov’s plays in Moscow theaters and, above all, of course, his “White Guard” in the Art Theater (see: volume “Diaries. Letters”, present. Collected Works).
Pressure was exerted both on Bulgakov (searches, surveillance, denunciations) and on the theater (demands from political intelligence agencies through the Repertoire Committee to stop rehearsals of “The White Guard”). Meetings of the repertoire and artistic board of the Moscow Art Theater resumed again, at which questions began to be debated about the title of the play, the need for new cuts, etc. To stop this fuss initiated from outside, Bulgakov on June 4, 1926 wrote an extremely harsh statement to the Council and Directorate of the Art Theater the following content:
“I have the honor to inform you that I do not agree to the removal of the Petlyura scene from my play “The White Guard.”
Motivation: The Petlyura scene is organically connected with the play.
I also do not agree that when the title is changed, the play should be called “Before the End.”
I also do not agree with turning a 4-act play into a 3-act one.
I agree, together with the Theater Council, to discuss a different title for the play “The White Guard”.
If the Theater does not agree with what is stated in this letter, I ask that the play “The White Guard” be withdrawn urgently” (Moscow Art Theater Museum, No. 17893).
Obviously, the leadership of the Art Theater was already aware of the political (for now!) terror that had begun against Bulgakov (the writer’s application to the OGPU for the return of his manuscripts and diary remained unanswered, which was a bad omen) and took such a harsh letter from him quite calmly. V.V. Luzhsky answered the writer in detail and in a friendly tone (letter without date):
“Dear Mikhail Afanasyevich!
What is it, what kind of fly, excuse me, has bitten you?! Why, how? What happened after yesterday’s conversation in front of K.S. and me... After all, they said yesterday and we decided that no one is throwing out the “Petliura” scene yet. You yourself gave your consent to the erasure of two scenes of Vasilisa, to the alteration and combination of two gymnasium scenes into one, to the Petlyura parade ground (!) with Bolbotun, you did not raise any big objections!(emphasis added by us. - V.L.) And suddenly, lo and behold! Your title remains “The Turbin Family” (in my opinion, better than Turbins...). How will the play become a three-act play? Two scenes for the Turbins - an act; for Skoropadsky - two; gymnasium, Petlyura, Turbins - three, and the finale for the Turbins again - four!..
What are you, dear and our Moscow Art Theater Mikhail Afanasyevich? Who got you so worked up?..” (IRLI, f. 369, no. 48).
But soon the whole theater had to “get excited”, and above all, all those who participated in the production of the play. On June 24, the first closed dress rehearsal took place. Those present, the head of the theater section of the Repertoire Committee, V. Blum, and the editor of this section, A. Orlinsky, expressed their dissatisfaction with the play and stated that it could be staged that way “in five years.” The next day, at a “conversation” held at the Repertoire Committee with representatives of the Moscow Art Theater, art officials formulated their attitude towards the play as a work that “represents a continuous apology for the White Guards, starting from the scene in the gymnasium and up to and including the scene of Alexei’s death,” and it is “completely unacceptable, and cannot go according to the interpretation given by the theater.” The theater was required to make the scene in the gymnasium in such a way that it would discredit the white movement and that the play would contain more episodes humiliating the White Guards (introduce servants, doormen and officers acting as part of Petliura’s army, etc.). Director I. Sudakov promised the Repertory Committee to more clearly show the “turn to Bolshevism” that had emerged among the White Guards. Ultimately, the theater was asked to finalize the play (see: M. A. Bulgakov, Plays of the 20s. Theatrical Heritage. L., 1989. P. 522).
It is characteristic that Bulgakov responded to this clearly organized pressure on the theater from the Repertoire Committee (in fact from the OGPU, where the “Bulgakov case” grew by leaps and bounds) with a repeated statement addressed to the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars (June 24) demanding that the diary and manuscripts confiscated be returned to him. employees of the OGPU (no response was given).
The play and its author gradually began to attract more and more attention from both its opponents and supporters. On June 26, Bulgakov’s friend N.N. Lyamin wrote an emotional letter to the playwright, in which he asked not to concede anything more, since “the theater has already distorted the play enough,” and begged him not to touch the stage in the gymnasium. “Don’t agree to sacrifice her for any good in the world. She makes an amazing impression, she makes all the sense. The image of Alyosha cannot be modified in any way; touching it is blasphemous...” (The Works of Mikhail Bulgakov. St. Petersburg, 1995. Book 3. P. 208).
And yet, the theater understood perfectly well (and the author, with great irritation) that in the name of saving the play, alterations were necessary. In a letter to director A.D. Popov (director of “Zoyka’s Apartment” at the Vakhtangov Theater), Bulgakov briefly touched upon the Moscow Art Theater’s problems: “There really is overwork. In May, all sorts of surprises not related to the theater (the search was closely “connected with the theater.” - V.L.), in May, the “Guard” race at the Moscow Art Theater 1st (viewed by the authorities!), in June, continuous work ( perhaps Bulgakov shifts the time somewhat due to forgetfulness. - V. L.)... In August, everything at once...”
On August 24, with the arrival of Stanislavsky, rehearsals for the play resumed. A new plan for the play, insertions and alterations was adopted. On August 26, in the “Rehearsal Diary” it was written: “M. A. Bulgakov wrote a new text for the gymnasium according to the plan approved by Konstantin Sergeevich.” The play was called “Days of the Turbins”. The scene with Vasilisa was removed, and two scenes in the gymnasium were combined into one. Other significant amendments were also made.
But opponents of the play increased pressure on the theater and on the author of the play. The situation became tense and extremely nervous. After the next rehearsal for the Repertoire Committee (September 17), its management stated that “the play cannot be released in this form. The question of permission remains open.” Even Stanislavsky could not stand it after this and, having met with the actors of the future play, declared that if the play was banned, he would leave the theater.
On September 19, the dress rehearsal of the play was canceled, new lines began to be introduced into the text of the play, and then, to please Repertkom and A.V. Lunacharsky, the scene of the torture of a Jew by Petliurists was filmed... Bulgakov did not have time to recover from this blow (the writer could not come to terms with with this decision for many years), and already on September 22 he was summoned for interrogation by the OGPU (for the interrogation protocol, see: this Meeting. Vol. 8). Of course, all these actions were coordinated: the OGPU and the Repertoire Committee insisted on filming the play. Bulgakov was intimidated during interrogation: after all, a dress rehearsal was planned for September 23.
The dress rehearsal was a success. In the “Rehearsal Diary” it was written: “The full general meeting with the public... Representatives of the USSR, the press, representatives of the Main Repertoire Committee, Konstantin Sergeevich, the Supreme Council and the Director’s Department are watching.
At today's performance it is decided whether the play is going on or not.
The performance is performed with the last marks and without the “Jew” scene.
After this dress rehearsal, Lunacharsky stated that in this form the performance could be allowed to be shown to the audience.”
But the ordeal with the play not only did not end there, but entered a decisive phase. On September 24, the play was approved by the board of the People's Commissariat for Education. And a day later the GPU banned the play (here it is, the real Cabal!). Then A.V. Lunacharsky turned to A.I. Rykov with the following post-telegram:
“Dear Alexey Ivanovich.
At a meeting of the board of the People's Commissariat for Education with the participation of the Repertoire Committee, including the GPU, it was decided to allow Bulgakov's play to only one Art Theater and only for this season. At the insistence of the General Repertoire Committee, the board allowed him to produce some banknotes. On Saturday evening the GPU notified the People's Commissariat for Education that it was banning the play. It is necessary to consider this issue in a higher authority or confirm the decision of the Narkompros board, which has already become known. The reversal of the decision of the board of the People’s Commissariat of Education of the GPU is extremely undesirable and even scandalous.”
On September 30, this issue was resolved at a meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. The following decision was made: “Do not cancel the resolution of the Narkompros board on Bulgakov’s play.” (Literary newspaper. 1999. July 14-20).
This was the first decision of the Politburo on Bulgakov's play, but far from the last.
The German correspondent Paul Schaeffer, well-known at that time, wrote in the Riga newspaper Segodnya (November 18, 1926): “While members of the party majority (meaning Stalin, Voroshilov, Rykov. - V.L.) admitted the possibility of staging , the opposition acted as a decisive opponent.”
Below we publish exactly this version of the play (third edition), which went through so many tests, but was performed by the brilliant troupe of the Art Theater from 1920 to 1941.
The first, second and third acts take place in the winter of 1918, the fourth act in early 1919. The scene is the city of Kyiv.
Act one
Scene one
Evening. Turbins' apartment. There is a fire in the fireplace, the clock strikes nine times. Alexey Vasilyevich Turbin, a 30-year-old artillery colonel, bent over papers, his 18-year-old brother Nikolka plays the guitar and sings: “The rumors are worse every hour. Petlyura is coming at us!” Alexey asks Nikolka not to sing “the cook’s songs.”
The electricity suddenly goes out, a military unit passes outside the windows singing, and a distant cannon strike is heard. The electricity flares up again. Elena Vasilyevna Talberg, the 24-year-old sister of Alexey and Nikolka, begins to seriously worry about her husband, Alexey and Nikolka reassure her: “You know that the line to the west is guarded by the Germans. And it takes a long time because they stand at every station. Revolutionary driving: you drive for an hour, you stand for two.”
The bell rings and the artillery staff captain, 38-year-old Viktor Viktorovich Myshlaevsky, comes in, completely frozen, almost frostbitten, with a bottle of vodka in his overcoat pocket. Myshlaevsky says that he came from near the Red Tavern, all the peasants of which went over to Petlyura’s side. Myshlaevsky himself almost miraculously got into the city - the transfer was organized by staff officers, for whom Myshlaevsky created a terrible scandal. Alexey happily accepts Myshlaevsky into his unit, located at the Alexander Gymnasium.
Myshlaevsky is warming himself by the fireplace and drinking vodka, Nikolka is rubbing his frostbitten feet, Elena is preparing a hot bath. When Myshlaevsky goes to the bathroom, a continuous bell rings. Enter the 21-year-old Zhitomir cousin of the Turbins, Larion Larionovich Surzhansky, Lariosik, with a suitcase and a bundle. Lariosik joyfully greets those present, completely not noticing that no one recognizes him despite his mother’s 63-word telegram. Only after Lariosik introduces himself is the misunderstanding resolved. It turns out that Lariosik is a cousin from Zhitomir, who came to enroll at Kiev University.
Lariosik is a mama's boy, an absurd, unadapted young man, a “terrible loser” living in his own world and time. He traveled from Zhitomir for 11 days; on the way, a bundle of linen was stolen from him, only books and manuscripts were left behind, only the shirt in which Lariosik wrapped Chekhov’s collected works survived. Elena decides to place her cousin in the library.
When Lariosik leaves, the bell rings - Colonel of the General Staff Vladimir Robertovich Talberg, Elena’s 38-year-old husband, has arrived. Elena happily talks about the arrival of Myshlaevsky and Lariosik. Thalberg is unhappy. He talks about the bad state of affairs: the city is surrounded by Petliurists, the Germans are leaving the hetman to his fate, and no one knows about it yet, not even the hetman himself.
Thalberg, a too prominent and well-known person (after all, an assistant to the Minister of War), is planning to flee to Germany. One, because the Germans don’t hire women. The train leaves in an hour and a half, Talberg seems to be consulting with his wife, but in fact he confronts her with the fact of his “business trip” (General Staff colonels do not run). Talberg beautifully argues that he is only going for two months, the hetman will definitely return, and then he will return, and in the meantime Elena will take care of their rooms. Talberg severely punishes Elena not to accept an annoying suitor, the hetman's personal adjutant, lieutenant Leonid Yuryevich Shervinsky, and not to cast a shadow on the Talberg family.
Elena leaves to pack her husband’s suitcase, and Alexey enters the room. Thalberg briefly informs him of his departure. Alexey is in cold anger; he does not accept Talberg’s handshake. Talberg announces that Alexei will have to answer for his words when... when Talberg returns. Nikolka enters, he also condemns the cowardly and petty Talberg, calling him a “rat.” Talberg is leaving...
Scene two
A little while later. The table is set for dinner, Elena sits at the piano and plays the same chord. Suddenly Shervinsky enters with a huge bouquet and presents it to Elena. Shervinsky delicately looks after her and pays her compliments.
Elena told Shervinsky about Talberg’s departure, Shervinsky is happy with the news, since now he has the opportunity to court him openly. Shervinsky boasts about how he once sang in Zhmerinka - he has a wonderful operatic voice:
Enter Alexey Turbin, 29-year-old captain Alexander Bronislavovich Studzinsky, Myshlaevsky, Lariosik and Nikolka. Elena invites everyone to the table - this is the last dinner before the performance of the Alexey Turbin division. The guests eat together, drink to Elena’s health, and shower her with compliments. Shervinsky says that everything is fine with the hetman, and one should not believe the rumors that the Germans are leaving him to his fate.
Everyone drinks to the health of Alexei Turbin. A tipsy Lariosik suddenly says: “... cream curtains... behind them you can rest your soul... you forget about all the horrors of the civil war. But our wounded souls so long for peace...”, causing friendly banter with this statement. Nikolka sits down at the piano and sings a patriotic soldier’s song, and then Shervinsky announces a toast in honor of the hetman. The toast is not supported, Studzinsky announces that “he will not drink this toast and does not advise other officers.” An unpleasant situation is brewing, against the backdrop of which Lariosik suddenly appears inappropriately with a toast “in honor of Elena Vasilievna and her husband, who has left for Berlin.” The officers enter into a heated discussion about the hetman and his actions, Alexey very sharply condemns the hetman's policies.
Meanwhile, Lariosik sits down at the piano and sings, everyone chaotically picks up. Drunk Myshlaevsky grabs a Mauser and is about to go shoot the commissars; they calm him down. Shervinsky continues to defend the hetman, while mentioning Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich. Nikolka notices that the emperor was killed by the Bolsheviks. Shervinsky says that this is an invention of the Bolsheviks, and tells the legendary story about Nicholas II, who is supposedly now at the court of the German Emperor Wilhelm. Other officers object to him. Myshlaevsky is crying. He remembers Emperor Peter III, Paul I and Alexander I, killed by their subjects. Then Myshlaevsky becomes ill, Studzinsky, Nikolka and Alexey take him to the bathroom.
Shervinsky and Elena are left alone. Elena is restless, she tells Shervinsky a dream: “It was as if we were all traveling on a ship to America and were sitting in the hold. And then there’s a storm... The water rises to our very feet... We climb onto some bunks. And suddenly rats. So disgusting, so huge..."
Shervinsky suddenly declares to Elena that her husband will not return, and confesses his love to her. Elena does not believe Shervinsky, reproaches him for impudence, “adventures” with a mezzo-soprano with painted lips; then she admits that she doesn’t love or respect her husband, but she really likes Shervinsky. Shervinsky begs Elena to divorce Talberg and marry him. They kiss.
Act two
Scene one
Night. The hetman's office in the palace. There is a huge desk in the room with telephones on it. The door opens and footman Fyodor lets Shervinsky in. Shervinsky is surprised that there is no one in the office, neither duty officers nor adjutants. Fyodor tells him that the hetman’s second personal adjutant, Prince Novozhiltsev, “deigned to receive unpleasant news” over the phone and at the same time “changed a lot in their face,” and then “left the palace completely,” “left in civilian clothes.” Shervinsky is perplexed and furious. He rushes to the phone and calls Novozhiltsev, but on the phone they answer in the voice of Novozhiltsev himself that he is not there. The chief of staff of the Svyatoshinsky regiment and his assistants are also missing. Shervinsky writes a note and asks Fyodor to give it to the messenger, who should receive a certain package from this note.
The Hetman of All Ukraine enters. He is wearing a rich Circassian coat, crimson trousers and boots without heels of the Caucasian type. Shiny general's shoulder straps. Short-cropped graying mustache, clean-shaven head, about forty-five.
The Hetman appointed a meeting at a quarter to twelve, to which the high command of the Russian and German armies should arrive. Shervinsky reports that no one has arrived. He tries to tell the hetman in broken Ukrainian about Novozhiltsev’s unworthy behavior, the hetman lashes out at Shervinsky. Shervinsky, now switching to Russian, reports that they called from the headquarters and reported that the commander of the volunteer army fell ill and left with the entire headquarters on a German train to Germany. The hetman is amazed. Shervinsky reports that at ten o’clock in the evening the Petliura units broke through the front and the 1st Petliura Cavalry Division under the command of Bolbotun went into the breakthrough.
There is a knock on the door, and representatives of the German command enter: the gray-haired, long-faced General von Schratt and the purple-faced Major von Doust. The Hetman joyfully greets them, talks about the betrayal of the Russian command headquarters and the breakthrough of the front by Petlyura’s cavalry. He asks the German command to immediately provide troops to repel the gangs and “restore order in Ukraine, so friendly to Germany.”
The generals refuse to help the hetman, declaring that all of Ukraine is on Petliura’s side, and therefore the German command is withdrawing its divisions back to Germany, and they propose an immediate “evacuation” of the hetman in the same direction. The hetman begins to get nervous and swagger. He protests and declares that he himself will gather an army to defend Kyiv. The Germans in response hint that if the hetman is suddenly captured, he will be hanged immediately. The hetman is broken.
Dust shoots a revolver at the ceiling, Schratt hides in the next room. To those who came running in response to the noise, Dust explains that everything is fine with the hetman, it was General von Schratt who caught the revolver in his trousers and “mistakenly hit it on his head.” A German army doctor enters the room with a medical bag. Schratt hastily dresses the hetman in a German uniform, “as if you were me, and I was the wounded man; We will secretly take you out of the city.”
The field telephone rings, Shervinsky reports to the hetman that two Serdyuk regiments have gone over to Petliura’s side, and enemy cavalry has appeared on the exposed section of the front. The hetman asks you to tell them to delay the cavalry for at least half an hour - he wants to leave in time. Shervinsky turns to Schratt with a request to take him and his bride to Germany. Schratt refuses, he reports that there are no places on the evacuation train, and there is already an adjutant there - Prince Novozhiltsev. Meanwhile, the confused hetman is disguised as a German general. The doctor tightly bandages his head and places him on a stretcher. The hetman is carried out, and Schratt leaves unnoticed through the back door.
Shervinsky notices a gold cigarette case that the hetman forgot. After hesitating a little, Shervinsky puts the cigarette case in his pocket. Then he calls Turbin and talks about the hetman’s betrayal, dresses in civilian clothes, which were delivered at his request by a messenger, and disappears.
Scene two
Evening. Empty, gloomy room. Caption: “Headquarters of the 1st Film Division.” The standard is blue and yellow, there is a kerosene lantern at the entrance. Outside the windows, the sound of horse hooves can be heard from time to time, and a harmonica plays quietly.
A Sich deserter with a bloody face is dragged into the headquarters. The Petliurist centurion, the former Ulan captain Galanba, cold, black, brutally interrogates the deserter, who in fact turns out to be a Petliurist with frostbitten feet, making his way to the infirmary. Galanba orders the Sich to be taken to the infirmary, and after the doctor has bandaged his legs, to be brought back to the headquarters and given fifteen ramrods, “so that he knows how to run away from his regiment without documents.”
A man with a basket is brought to headquarters. This is a shoemaker, he works at home, and takes the finished goods to the city, to the owner’s store. The Petliurites rejoice - they have something to profit from, they snap up the boots, despite the timid objections of the shoemaker. Bolbotun declares that the shoemaker will be given a receipt, and Galanba punches the shoemaker in the ear. The shoemaker runs away. At this time, an offensive is announced.
Act three
Scene one
Dawn. The lobby of the Alexander Gymnasium. Guns in trestles, boxes, machine guns. Giant staircase, portrait of Alexander I at the top. The division marches along the corridors of the gymnasium, Nikolka sings romances to the absurd tune of a soldier's song, the cadets are deafeningly picked up.
An officer approaches Myshlaevsky and Studzinsky and says that five cadets ran away from his platoon at night. Myshlaevsky replies that Turbin has left to clarify the situation, and then orders the cadets to go to the classrooms to “break desks and heat stoves!” A 60-year-old student supervisor, Maxim, appears from the closet and says in horror that you can’t heat with desks, but need to heat with wood; but there is no firewood, and the officers wave him off.
Shell explosions are heard very close. Alexey Turbin enters. He urgently orders the return of the outpost on Demievka, and then addresses the officers and division: “I announce that I am disbanding our division. The fight with Petlyura is over. I order everyone, including officers, to immediately take off their shoulder straps and all insignia and run home.”
The dead silence explodes with shouts: “Arrest him!”, “What does this mean?”, “Junker, take him!”, “Junker, go back!”. Confusion ensues, the officers wave their revolvers, the cadets do not understand what is happening and refuse to obey the order. Myshlaevsky and Studzinsky stand up for Turbin, who again takes the floor: “Who do you want to defend? Tonight, the hetman, abandoning his army to the mercy of fate, fled, disguised as a German officer, to Germany. At the same time, another rascal, the army commander, Prince Belorukov, was running in the same direction. Here we are, two hundred of us. And Petliura’s army of two hundred thousand is on the outskirts of the city! In a word, I will not lead you into battle, because I am not participating in the booth, especially since all of you will completely pointlessly pay for this booth with your blood! I tell you: the white movement in Ukraine is over. He's finished everywhere! The people are not with us. He is against us. And here I am, a career officer Alexei Turbin, who endured the war with the Germans, I accept everything on my conscience and responsibility, I warn you and, loving you, I send you home. Rip off your shoulder straps, throw away your rifles and go home immediately!”
There is a terrible commotion in the hall, the cadets and officers run away. Nikolka hits the box with switches with her rifle and runs away. The light goes out. Alexei is tearing up and burning papers at the stove. Maxim enters, Turbin sends him home. A glow breaks through the windows of the gymnasium, Myshlaevsky appears upstairs and shouts that he has set fire to the workshop, now he will roll two more bombs into the hay - and off he goes. But when he finds out that Turbin is staying at the gymnasium to wait for the outpost, he decides to stay with him. Turbin is against it, he orders Myshlaevsky to immediately go to Elena and protect her. Myshlaevsky disappears.
Nikolka appears at the top of the stairs and declares that she will not leave without Alexei. Alexey grabs a revolver in order to somehow force Nikolka to run away. At this time, the cadets who were at the outpost appear. They report that Petlyura's cavalry is following. Alexei orders them to flee, while he himself remains to cover the retreat of the cadets.
There is a close explosion, the glass breaks, Alexei falls. With the last of his strength, he orders Nikolka to give up being a hero and run. At that moment the Haidamaks burst into the hall and shoot at Nikolka. Nikolka crawls up the stairs, throws herself off the railing and disappears.
The harmonica makes noise and buzzes, a trumpet sounds, banners float up the stairs. A deafening march.
Scene two
Dawn. Turbins' apartment. There is no electricity, a candle is burning on the card table. In the room is Lariosik and Elena, who is very worried about the brothers, Myshlaevsky, Studzinsky and Shervinsky. Lariosik volunteers to go on a search, but Elena dissuades him. She herself is going to go out to meet her brothers. Lariosik started talking about Talberg, but Elena sternly cuts him off: “Don’t mention my husband’s name in the house again. Do you hear?
There is a knock on the door - Shervinsky has arrived. He brought bad news: the hetman and Prince Belorukov fled, Petliura took the city. Shervinsky tries to calm Elena down, explaining that he warned Alexey, and he will come soon.
Again there is a knock on the door - Myshlaevsky and Studzinsky enter. Elena rushes to them with the question: “Where are Alyosha and Nikolai?” They calm her down.
Myshlaevsky begins to mock Shervinsky, reproaching him for his love for the hetman. Shervinsky is furious. Studzinski tries to stop the quarrel. Myshlaevsky softens and asks: “Well, does that mean he started moving in front of you?” Shervinsky replies: “In front of me. He hugged and thanked for his faithful service. And he shed tears... And he gave me a gold cigarette case, with a monogram.”
Myshlaevsky does not believe it, hints at Shervinsky’s “rich imagination”, he silently shows the stolen cigarette case. Everyone is amazed.
There is a knock on the window. Studzinsky and Myshlaevsky go to the window and, carefully pulling back the curtain, look out and run out. A few minutes later Nikolka is brought into the room, his head is broken, there is blood in his boot. Lariosik wants to notify Elena, but Myshlaevsky covers his mouth: “Lenka, Lenka needs to be removed somewhere...”.
Shervinsky comes running with iodine and bandages, Studzinsky bandages Nikolka’s head. Suddenly Nikolka comes to his senses, they immediately ask him: “Where is Alyoshka?”, but Nikolka only mumbles incoherently in response.
Elena quickly enters the room, and they immediately begin to calm her down: “He fell and hit his head. There’s nothing scary.” Elena, in alarm, interrogates Nikolka: “Where is Alexey?” - Myshlaevsky makes a sign to Nikolka - “be quiet.” Elena is hysterical, she guesses that something terrible happened to Alexei, and reproaches the survivors for their inaction. Studzinski grabs his revolver: “She’s absolutely right! It's all my fault. It was impossible to leave him! I am a senior officer, and I will correct my mistake!”
Shervinsky and Myshlaevsky are trying to reason with Studzinsky and take the revolver away from him. Elena tries to soften her reproach: “I said it out of grief. My head went blank... I went crazy...” And then Nikolka opens her eyes and confirms Elena’s terrible guess: “They killed the commander.” Elena faints.
Act four
Two months have passed. Epiphany Christmas Eve 1919 arrived. Elena and Lariosik are decorating the Christmas tree. Lariosik scatters compliments in front of Elena, reads poetry to her and admits that he is in love with her. Elena calls Lariosik a “terrible poet” and a “touching person,” asks him to read poetry, and kisses him on the forehead in a friendly manner. And then she admits that she has been in love with one person for a long time, moreover, she is having an affair with him; and Lariosik knows this man very well... Desperate Lariosik goes for vodka to “drink himself into unconsciousness,” and at the door he encounters Shervinsky entering. The one in the nasty hat, tattered coat and blue glasses. Shervinsky tells the news: “Congratulations to you, Petliura is finished! There will be red ones tonight. Lena, it's all over. Nikolka is recovering... Now a new life begins. It is impossible for us to languish any longer. He won't come. They cut him off, Lena!” Elena agrees to become Shervinsky’s wife if he changes and stops lying and boasting. They decide to notify Thalberg of the divorce by telegram.
Shervinsky rips Talberg's portrait from the wall and throws it into the fireplace. They go to Elena's room. The piano is heard, Shervinsky sings.
Nikolka enters, pale and weak, in a black cap and student jacket, on crutches. He notices the torn frame and lies down on the sofa. Lariosik arrives, he just got a bottle of vodka on his own, moreover, he brought it to the apartment unharmed, which is something he is extremely proud of. Nikolka points to the empty portrait frame: “Great news! Elena separates from her husband. She will marry Shervinsky.” Stunned, Lariosik drops the bottle, which breaks into pieces.
The bell rings, Lariosik lets in Myshlaevsky and Studzinsky, both in civilian clothes. They vying with each other to report the news: “The Reds defeated Petliura! Petliura’s troops are leaving the city!”, “The Reds are already in Slobodka. They'll be here in half an hour."
Studzinsky reflects: “It’s best for us to join the convoy and follow Petliura to Galicia! And then go to the Don, to Denikin, and fight the Bolsheviks.” Myshlaevsky does not want to return to the command of the generals: “I have been fighting for the fatherland since nine hundred and fourteen... And where is this fatherland when they abandoned me to shame?! And I go to these lordships again?! And if the Bolsheviks mobilize, then I will go and serve. Yes! Because Petlyura has two hundred thousand, but they have greased their heels with lard and are blowing away at the mere word “Bolsheviks.” Because there are a cloud of peasants behind the Bolsheviks. At least I will know that I will serve in the Russian army.”
“What the hell is the Russian army, when they finished off Russia?!” - Studzinsky objects, - “We had Russia - a great power!”
"And will be!" - Myshlaevsky answers, “It won’t be the same, it will be new.”
In the heat of an argument, Shervinsky runs in and announces that Elena is divorcing Talberg and marrying Shervinsky. Everyone congratulates them. Suddenly the door to the hallway opens, Talberg enters in a civilian coat and with a suitcase.
Elena asks everyone to leave her and Thalberg alone. Everyone leaves, and for some reason Lariosik is on tiptoe. Elena briefly informs Talberg that Alexei was killed and Nikolka is crippled. Talberg declares that the hetmanate “turned out to be a stupid operetta,” the Germans deceived them, but in Berlin he managed to get a business trip to the Don, to General Krasnov, and now he has come for his wife. Elena dryly answers Talberg that she is divorcing him and marrying Shervinsky. Talberg tries to make a scene, but Myshlaevsky comes out and says: “Well? Get out!” - hits Talberg in the face. Talberg is confused, he goes to the hallway and leaves...
Everyone enters the room with the tree, Lariosik turns off the lights and turns on the light bulbs on the tree, then brings the guitar and hands it to Nikolka. Nikolka sings, and everyone except Studzinsky picks up the chorus: “So for the Council of People’s Commissars we will ring out a loud “Hurray!” Hooray! Hooray!".
Everyone asks Lariosik to give a speech. Lariosik is embarrassed, refuses, but still says: “We met at the most difficult and terrible time, and we all experienced a lot... including me. My fragile ship was tossed for a long time on the waves of the civil war... Until he was gone washed up in this harbor with cream curtains, among the people I liked so much... However, I found drama with them too... Time has turned, Petlyura has disappeared... We are all together again... And even more than that: Here is Elena Vasilievna, she has also experienced a lot, and she deserves happiness, because she is a wonderful woman.”
Distant cannon shots are heard. But this is not a fight, this is a fireworks display. “International” is playing on the street - the Reds are coming. Everyone comes to the window.
“Gentlemen,” says Nikolka, “tonight is a great prologue to a new historical play.”
“To whom - a prologue,” Studzinsky answers him, “and to whom - an epilogue.”
In April 1925, Bulgakov received an offer to stage the novel “The White Guard” for the Art Theater. For the gathering of the troupe - August 15 - the author presented the play. It was a dramatization that kept the main events of the novel and its characters intact. In the course of numerous alterations, which the author undertook both on his own initiative and on the initiative of the theater, out of 16 paintings in the play, called “Days of the Turbins,” only 7 were left.
THE PLAY “DAYS OF THE TURBINES” AND THE NOVEL “THE WHITE GUARD”. The novel “The White Guard” covers the period from December 1918 to February 1919. The events selected for the play “Days of the Turbins” coincide in duration with the novel ones: the first, second and third acts take place in the winter of 1918, the fourth act - at the beginning 1919. But in the stage version this period is compressed to approximately three days, or more precisely, to three evenings and one morning, which corresponds to four acts of the drama.
At the moment chosen by Bulgakov for the image, the Germans with the hetman and white detachments were holding out in Kyiv, the peasant masses led by Petlyura were advancing on Kyiv, the Bolsheviks were in the north, and Denikin was on the Don. The playwright focused on the events associated with the flight of the hetman and the coming of Petliura, which from a censorship point of view was most acceptable: “It is not the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, not the landowners and peasants who are opposing each other, the great power is opposed to separatism, the metropolis is opposed to the colonies, Russia is opposed to Ukraine, Moscow - Kyiv.”
The novel did not cover the entire panorama of historical events: the action was concentrated in the City and on the approaches to it. And yet, a mass of named and nameless heroes were introduced into the novel; crowds of people, troops on the streets, and clashes between units loyal to the hetman and Petliura’s troops were depicted. The chosen spatial composition made it possible to sense the reasons for the mass disappointment of the average military intelligentsia in their leaders.
In the play, the historical panorama was replaced by two scenes of the second act - a scene in the hetman's office in the palace and a scene in the headquarters of the 1st cavalry division. The play thus retained the features of a historical chronicle, but its compositional center was the Turbins’ house.
To emphasize the special place of the Turbin house in the dramatic space of the play, Bulgakov refused to introduce the Lisovich family into the play. In a sense, Lisovich with his dull, petty behavior was replaced by Colonel Talberg. If in the novel the careerist element was emphasized in the latter’s behavior, then in the play this was supplemented by petty-bourgeois grumbling. “Not a house, but an inn,” he angrily reprimands Elena, dissatisfied with the arrival of Myshlaevsky and the arrival of Lariosik. A successfully found plot device (a return to the moment of the announcement of the divorce and the upcoming wedding of Elena and Shervinsky) contributed to the disgrace of Thalberg and at the same time enlarged his line, making the presence in the play of the duplicating line of the Lisovichs unnecessary.
So, the stage space of the play is given to the history and house of the Turbins, historical chronicle and psychological drama. DRAMATURGICAL CONFLICT OF “DAYS OF THE TURBINES”, ITS ORIGINALITY. BULGAKOV AND CHEKHOV. The Moscow Art Theater perceived Bulgakov's play in the context of its related Chekhov drama. This was influenced by Bulgakov’s love for the details of everyday life (cream curtains, a lamp with a green lampshade, notes on the piano, flowers), as well as the young playwright’s ability to create an image of a mood that colors a stage or even an entire act and is enhanced with the help of sound or musical accompaniment. The similarity also affected the deeper levels of drama (conflict, stage action, method of creating stage unity), but it was a similarity-overcoming that led to the creation of a different type of drama.
Let's start with the conflict. As is known, clashes between characters in Chekhov's plays do not lead to a dramatic conflict. And in Bulgakov, the hostility between the Turbins and Talberg, even the outcome of the relationship between Elena and Talberg or Elena and Shervinsky, do not acquire paramount importance in the play.
Determining the uniqueness of the conflict in Chekhov's drama, the famous researcher of the art of drama V.E. Khalizyev points out that Chekhov bases his mature plays “not on traditional external conflicts and clashes between the oppressors and their victims, attackers and defenders, not on the ups and downs of the struggle between characters, but on long-term, fundamentally unchanging unfavorable situations in their lives. .. Chekhov’s appeal to a new type of dramatic conflict is ultimately connected with the fact that he considers the characters and destinies of his heroes and heroines... in relation not so much to the surrounding social environment, but to the “general state of the world” - to the social situation in the country as a whole."
In Bulgakov, this “general state of the world” takes on the appearance of History, invades the stage space and transfers the problem of a tragic collision with fate from the symbolic to the real plane, forcing the heroes to direct participation, to choice, to action, which is not typical for Chekhov’s heroes.
In Bulgakov's play, characters manifest themselves primarily in their actions, starting from the proposal that Shervinsky makes to Elena and ending with the heroic death of Alexei Turbin. The presence in the system of characters of a typically Chekhovian hero, Lariosik, only emphasizes Bulgakov’s deviation from Chekhov’s path.
No less interesting in the play (and in this Bulgakov follows the Chekhov tradition) is the ability to reveal the characters’ characters through the everyday well-being of the characters, their emotionally charged reflections.
But in Bulgakov’s play, these internal reflections are not associated with impressions “from small everyday events,” as in Chekhov, but with a reaction to significant historical situations. They take the form of direct reflection (in the monologues of Alexei Turbin and Myshlaevsky). But the main interest of the drama is in the author’s desire to show that the reflections, and in general the well-being of the characters that arise in the context of a scene or act, are colored by an awareness of the historical moment, their capture by the historical flow.
In “The White Guard,” events raged around the Turbino house, and he himself, in spite of everything, remained an island of comfort. In the play, the Turbino house is carried by furious waves of events. The fate of the cultural tradition, which has become the way of life, the air of the Turbino house, the essence of those involved in this house, is under threat.
The historical and the particular are not assigned to specific paintings, but are constantly correlated with each other. History invades the daily life of the Turbins, essentially becoming the main content of this life. As soon as the curtain opens, she makes herself known with Nikolka’s song (“Worse rumors every hour. / Petlyura is coming at us!”), shots of cannons booming somewhere near Svyatoshin, the electricity constantly going out, a military unit passing along the street. It penetrates into the speech of the characters, determines their behavior, manifests itself in the state of Elena, impatiently waiting for her husband, in the behavior of Talbert, Lariosik, in Myshlaevsky’s story about the situation at the front. History is discussed at the “last division supper.” History changes the Turbino world. The extent of these changes determines the character system characteristic of the play.
It is no coincidence that Lariosik, the Zhytomyr cousin Larion Surzhansky, gets such an important place among the characters in the play. From a secondary, even tertiary character in a novel, he becomes one of the foreground characters in the play.
By introducing a hero into the Turbins’ house already in the first scene of the first act, “as if stitched together from the most common quotes of Russian literature,” Bulgakov, according to A. Smelyansky, creates a “theatrical equivalent” of the Turbins’ former life, their former worldview.
The expansion and deepening of the role of Lariosik with his comically presented reflection, with his helplessness, indecision, defenselessness, awkwardness should have highlighted the psychological changes in the “Chekhov” environment, just as the “rat” - Talberg was called upon to emphasize the Turbins’ unwavering loyalty to military and family duty.
Describing the system of characters, V. Khodasevich, who saw the Moscow Art Theater performance in Paris, wrote: “From Talberg to Alexei Turbin there is a whole chain of characters that are gradually becoming clearer. They can be arranged in a certain sequence. Shervinsky comes in first place. He is not a scoundrel at all, but also not a man of impeccable honesty (the story with the cigarette case); he is a dummy and a liar, incapable of direct selfishness, but even less capable of self-sacrifice; he honestly serves the White Guard, but will not connect his fate with it and will very easily survive its death. Behind him is Myshlaevsky, an excellent front-line soldier, a good comrade, not a difficult person, because he has not yet developed to any level of complexity; he is crushed by the death of the white army... Captain Studzinsky is a somewhat pale figure - the average type of an honest servant and a decent person. Then, finally, Alexey Turbin is a true hero, a man of knightly valor. His younger brother, a cadet, is a wonderful young man who, like Alexei, would not think of sacrificing his life, but fate does not require this from him: the army dies before his heroism has a chance to come to light.”
At the center of the character system in “Days of the Turbins” were, unlike the novel, not the young Turbins, but three White Guard officers: Alexei Turbin, Myshlaevsky and Studzinsky, personifying the three possible paths for an officer in the conditions of the revolution: death, freeing one from choice, a step towards the Bolsheviks and a third road leading to a dead end. Studzinski, who chooses her, goes from being an episodic character to one of the main characters.
Alexey Turbin, a doctor, a restless intellectual, as he is shown in the novel, turns in the play into a colonel, commander of an artillery division, displacing the novel's Malyshev. Aleksey also embodies, especially in the last moments of his life, the purity and nobility of Nai-Tours. Colonel Alexey Turbin reacts to the situation most consciously and sharply. He is very concerned about the events in Ukraine, he is disappointed in the actions of the hetman, who began to “break this damn comedy with Ukrainization,” he sees the disintegration of the white officers led by the “guards staff horde,” and predicts the death of the White movement. In the last act, Myshlaevsky, with his decisive conclusions, seems to replace the tragically deceased Colonel Turbin.
PROBLEMS OF THE PLAY AND ITS GENRE ORIGINALITY. Thus, in the play, unlike the novel, the idea of doom of the old world in general and the White Guard movement in the first place is heard. The characters become confident in the inevitability of the birth of a “new Russia”. The best representatives of the White Guard recognize the historical correctness of the Bolsheviks. Therefore, it does not seem strange that I. Stalin’s point of view regarding the fact that “Days of the Turbins” “give more benefit than harm,” leaving the viewer with an impression “favorable for the Bolsheviks”: “Even if people like the Turbins are forced to lay down their arms ... means the Bolsheviks are invincible.” Is this how the audience perceived the play? The fact is that the “pro-Soviet” ideological plan, so directly outlined in the play, is softened by its special genre nature, which goes back to Chekhov’s innovations. We are talking about the combination of the tragic with the comic and lyrical, about the constant adjustment of the ideological principle by the invasion of the comic and lyrical. Thus, the statement of Alexei Turbin, imbued with tragic pathos, sounds against the backdrop of a drunken revelry. The motif of betrayal and flight that arose in the first act (Thalberg, the departure of German troops) is travestied by the operetta motif of cross-dressing (the flight of the hetman, who is “carried out” from the palace with a bandaged head and in a German uniform; Shervinsky’s disguise). The tragic beginning reaches its culmination in the first scene of the third act. This is a scene in the Alexander Gymnasium, where Alexey Turbin refuses to send people to their deaths. Even in the face of the threat of the destruction of his ideals and principles, he declares to the cadets: “And here I am, a career officer Alexei Turbin, who endured the war with the Germans, as witnessed by captains Studzinsky and Myshlaevsky, I accept everything on my conscience and responsibility, I accept everything and, loving you, I’m sending you home.”
Turbin's statement and his very act appear in the play as the most important moral outcome of his experience. He comes to recognize the intrinsic value of human life in the face of any idea, no matter how significant it may be.
The situation related to the fate of the Turbins, which became more and more dramatic as the action progressed, in this scene reaches tragic tension: having recognized the right to life for others, Alexey Turbin cannot recognize such a right for himself. He, as Nikolka suggests, is looking for death, and a stray shell fragment overtakes him.
The tragic fate of Alexei Turbin is the compositional center of the play, but parallel to his line there are lines of a lyrical, comic and tragicomic nature. Bulgakov builds a system of images through a paradoxical mixture of genres; the fates of tragic or lyrical heroes are corrected by comic characters.
Lariosik, Shervinsky, Myshlaevsky, Nikolka, and watchman Maxim bring a tragicomic element to the play. All of them are endowed to one degree or another with naivety of perception, and this gives the author the opportunity, with their help, to constantly shift the tragic and lyrical into the comedic plane. Thus, the tragic theme in the first two films is connected with Alexei Turbin. It appears against the backdrop of a drunken revelry. At the moment when Alexei proposes a toast to the meeting with the Bolsheviks (“Either we bury them, or rather, they us...”), Lariosik’s inappropriate song (“Thirst for a meeting, / Oaths, speeches - / Everything in the world / Tryn- grass...” intensifies the tragic sound of the episode. But the act ends with a lyrical sienna (Elena’s explanation with Shervinsky), which, in turn, is interrupted by a comedic episode - the awakening of a drunken Lariosik.
The principle of comic decline is carried out consistently in the most tragic places of “Days of the Turbins”. Thus, in the climactic scene of the play, Turbin’s heroic act, which saved the lives of two hundred cadets and students, receives a strange, almost parodic highlight thanks to the tragicomic appearance of the gymnasium guard Maxim, who remained to defend the gymnasium (“I was told by Mr. Director...”).
Musical commentary and sound symbolism are of particular importance in the structure of the play. Constantly not coinciding with the visible plan of action, musical commentary transfers it to the opposite plan, reveals tragedy in farce and vice versa. The dispute between the heroes often reaches its highest tension not in words, but in musical parts. The antithesis music - word constantly arises. One of the eloquent examples in this sense is the final scene, where the general feeling of completion of dramatic events is accompanied by the roar of cannons and “distant muffled music”, announcing the entry of the Bolsheviks into the city.
The composition of the play is significant in this context. It would seem that the scene in the Alexander Gymnasium is not only the culmination, but also the denouement of the action, the finale of the drama. In Bulgakov, after it, another, fourth act appears, reproducing the situation of the first.
The ring composition is one of the signs that Bulgakov’s stage action, although it takes the form of a direct collision with History, is no less expressed than in Chekhov in the sphere of “internal action.”
At the beginning of the play - the eve of the tragic events, Thalberg's flight and a desperate feast - the “last supper of the division” before the battle with the Petliurites, when it turns out that tomorrow they will go into battle, but for whom and for what is unknown.
At the end - Epiphany Christmas Eve of the 19th year, which came two months after the death of Alexei and the wounding of Nikolka, a Christmas tree, again a gathering of friends, the appearance of Talberg and the announcement of the wedding of Elena and Shervinsky - the epilogue of some and the eve of new tragic events, the anxious anticipation of the arrival of the Bolsheviks.
The beginning and end of the play are intertwined with repeating motifs. First of all, this is the motive for the inevitable meeting with the Bolsheviks. In Act 1, it is intelligible only to Alexei Turbin: “In Russia, gentlemen, there are two forces: the Bolsheviks and us. We will meet... When we meet with the Bolsheviks, things will be more fun. Either we will bury them, or - more accurately - they will bury us. I drink to the meeting, gentlemen!”
In the 4th act, this meeting really looms before everyone, and the attitude towards it is ambiguous: from Myshlaevsky’s readiness to go to the Cheka to be shot to Studzinsky’s intention to go to the Don, to Denikin. Such discord in itself speaks of the awakening of the need for self-determination in the traditional military environment. The interweaving of this motif with the motif of dressing up is interesting. He is associated with Shervinsky, for whom the world is a theater, and he himself is an actor, easily moving from play to play (he takes off his burka, remains in a magnificent Circassian coat, exchanges his Circassian coat for civilian clothes, comes in a “non-partisan coat”, rented from a janitor, takes off and appears in a magnificent tailcoat).
The motive of the meeting with the Bolsheviks and its transformation are inseparable from the motive of the “God-bearing people.” Associated with it is the understanding that ultimately the outcome of the meeting will depend on the position of the “nice men from the works of Leo Tolstoy.” But in the 1st act a curse is addressed to the “dear little men”, and in the 4th the thought of them turns into a recognition of the inevitability of tomorrow’s victory of the Bolsheviks (“behind the Bolsheviks there are clouds of peasants”).
The motif of drunken oblivion, drinking (“I wish I could drink some vodka, some vodka” - an everyday detail takes on a symbolic character), which permeates the second scene of the 1st act, having arisen in the 4th, is resolved by another mistake of Lariosik, who drops the bottle - for the benefit of general sobering up, not only literally, of course.
But the correlation of the motives of the 1st and 4th acts, which is most important for Bulgakov’s concept, is connected with the image of the House.
The house in Lariosik’s perception appears first as the embodiment of peace in a raging world, then as a symbol of a future better life (“We will rest, we will rest...”). References to Chekhov, provoked by the literal reproduction of Chekhov's text, should precisely draw attention to the discrepancy in the interpretation of the image of the House. For Chekhov's heroes, the House is a closed space, a triumph of everyday life that fetters a person. In Bulgakov, the motif of the House in Act 1 is associated with the motif of a sinking ship, chaos penetrating inside sacred space (bogey). In the 4th act, the motif of returned life and indestructible everyday life sounds as the basis of the world. The idea of the intrinsic value of life, the human right to live in spite of the general catastrophe, is affirmed. As in Act 1, the idea of it is realized in the motif of unsleeping fate (a soldier’s march to the words of Pushkin’s “Song of the Prophetic Oleg”). This motif tragically frames the celebration of resurgent life, revealing its defenselessness. The thunder of six-inch batteries, under which Lariosik pronounces the classic words in the finale: “We will rest, we will rest...” - becomes the completion, the resolution of the Chekhov theme of the play.
Thus, the image of the mood translates the general impression of the unfolding events into a different register than the thought of the inevitability of the birth of a “new Russia.”
So, in the play “Days of the Turbins,” Bulgakov, turning to the image of “Russian strife,” managed to rise above the mood of class strife and affirm the idea of humanity, the intrinsic value of life, and the immutability of traditional moral values. Inheriting the achievements of Chekhov's drama, Bulgakov created a work that was original in terms of genre, combining historical chronicle with psychological drama, which organically included lyrical and tragicomic principles.
“Days of the Turbins” connected the dramaturgy of the New Age with the Chekhov era and at the same time revealed the author’s desire to write in a new way. The play was a huge success, but in 1929, opponents of the play ensured that it disappeared from the Moscow Art Theater poster for three years. In February 1932, by government decision, the performance was returned to the stage.
